View Full Version : What would it take for Humanity to Unite?
Aliens? apocalypse? Cloverfield?
would humanity need a drastic event or extreme unsettling or enlightenment for the world to progress for a common well being? or do you believe such a thing can evolve from our current state?
Could there be a world with no governments? no laws?
personally, i feel that if the entire world was completely honest, and never told a lie, it could be possible. but who the **** am i?
is it nessesary to have a common enemy for us to realize that we are one species?
Do people fight people of different color and culture because we have no common enemy and must then fight ourselves?
go:naughty:
BassRevelation0
09-06-2008, 04:31 AM
who says we aren't united?
Brother and sisters fight and quarrel, but at the end of it all, they are still brothers and sisters. Likewise, we are all humans, and we realize that, which is why we fight.
oh. i forgot that world war, nuclear tention, and global racism were healthy things.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 05:00 AM
Peace cannot possibly exist on this earth if there are nationalities, which is really just glorified tribalism. Nationalities give a certain security, and man needs security so he invests in nationalism (or in some particular ideology or belief or structure built on thought). Beliefs, ideologies and so on, have separated man and fear and insecurities within man have lead to wars and conflicts since before recorded history. Only a deep psychological revolution for mankind could ever hope to bring about peace.
something like total honesty? in my experience, complete honesty eliminates insecurity.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 05:14 AM
Honesty of what?
McP3000
09-06-2008, 05:38 AM
Idk wtf Guts is talking about but i do know he's a crazy idealist who likes to give too many hugs.
im not quite sure...
i want to say...hmm. it's linked with being secure in the first place. Honesty in performing a positive action. i dont know if that makes sense. Understanding in the fact that we should be working together instead of fighting wars.
instead of warring over oil for example, we could be spending all of that time, money, resources, energy, and though into developing a motor that does not use unrenewable resources. the internal combustion engine is about the most inefficent thing there is. If we can make a computer process at what ever speed a super computer does can we not get better then a vehicle that produces maybe 30% of it's power to the wheels? Were it not for profit, and if everyone could honestly say that they wanted things better.......sheeeeeet
McP3000
09-06-2008, 05:41 AM
im not quite sure...
i want to say...hmm. it's linked with being secure in the first place. Honesty in performing a positive action. i dont know if that makes sense. Understanding in the fact that we should be working together instead of fighting wars.
instead of warring over oil for example, we could be spending all of that time, money, resources, energy, and though into developing a motor that does not use unrenewable resources. the internal combustion engine is about the most inefficent thing there is. If we can make a computer process at what ever speed a super computer does can we not get better then a vehicle that produces maybe 30% of it's power to the wheels? Were it not for profit, and if everyone could honestly say that they wanted things better.......sheeeeeet
we have all those things it just costs too much to be economically feasible to distribute in a free market, or any type of market for that matter.
and you're working together versus fighting wars thing is hilariously sympathetic and cute.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 05:43 AM
People are always looking to technology to solve our problems.
I don't think we are looking in the right place.
we have all those things it just costs too much to be economically feasible to distribute in a free market, or any type of market for that matter.
and you're working together versus fighting wars thing is hilariously sympathetic and cute.
thanks sweetheart.
lets go one more step eh? why the free market? if i was contented by things that cant be bought, or things that can make myself. if i desire something i cannot produce either tough luck......idk. the other choice is to go to people who have skills in the thing i desire....but thats free market...
People are always looking to technology to solve our problems.
I don't think we are looking in the right place.
:chug: bam
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 05:53 AM
:chug: bam
I don't think your "honesty" solution is exactly a be all and end all answer either, though.
Sure, I'm certain honesty is a part of it, but even tyrant can be honest.
tyrants are the most honest people there are. They all so happen to enjoy killing people for the eventual good of one people. They have the right idea, but they miss the big picture. if they could unite ALL instead of SOME...that would be the way you do it.
The world need an massive icebreaker. we're all so uptight about everything and so strung out from modern society that we shelter ourselves because we cant deal with EVERYTHING. the coming of the information age is like a monkey discovering fire. we're currently trippin balls on media overload me thinks. example: the election...seriously.....what the **** is happening here? i feel like i've been smoking crack for the past 10 years watching BOTH sides.
Aaron
09-06-2008, 07:42 AM
What you're referring to GUTS, is heaven.
ThePalaceOfWisdom
09-06-2008, 08:14 AM
Your whole honesty thing is redundant. It is human nature to want what we don't have and when we don't have things we use violence against those who have what we want to get it. Even if there were no nationalities and we were all the same race we would just create other reasons to fight eachother. The only way for this world peace thing to work would be to make everyone the same. We wouldn't have anything that separates us from eachother effectivley we would end up being drones.
Theres a Twilight Zone episode like this called "The Number 12 looks just like you" end result was that everyone had the same personality and there weren't any individuals. That's your perfect world.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 08:18 AM
Your whole honesty thing is redundant. It is human nature to want what we don't have and when we don't have things we use violence against those who have what we want to get it. Even if there where no nationalities and we were all the same race we would just create other reasons to fight eachother. The only way for this world peace thing to work would be to make everyone the same. We wouldn't have anything that separates us from eachother effectivley we would end up being drones.
Theres a Twilight Zone episode like this called "The Number 12 looks just like you" end result was that everyone had the same personality and there weren't any individuals. That's your perfect world.
That is why I said ideologies and belief structures. Nationalities are really just an extension of that.
Also, I don't think individuality inherently has to be sacrificed for world peace.
JohnXDoe3
09-06-2008, 08:19 AM
for people to never ever have a grievance with one another again. for people to never be tempted to pick up a stick or a stone against another again
IOW it could never happen. maybe for an instant, but it wouldn't last. its simply impossible.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 08:20 AM
for people to never ever have a grievance with one another again. for people to never be tempted to pick up a stick and a stone against another again
IOW it could never happen. maybe for an instant, but it wouldn't last. its simply impossible.
Why is it impossible?
JohnXDoe3
09-06-2008, 08:25 AM
because we are a collection of individuals. and it doesn't take much to divide and convince others their is value in a fight or struggle
someone always has a reason...sometimes a good reason. or a cause. and someone will always impose upon others
it reminds me of a movie i saw recently. Apocalypto. peaceful indians of the forest...it was all they knew. one day some different kind of indians came with lives and ideas of their own. took them away and killed them, enslaved them. then the Spaniards came :/
its just...impossible for all of humanity to unite imo. we are all different, man lives peacefully here and there...but not everywhere. and even now we see just as much war and plight on the horizon as anything else
for humanity to "unite" would suggest a permanent condition. it just can't happen imo
ThePalaceOfWisdom
09-06-2008, 08:38 AM
That is why I said ideologies and belief structures. Nationalities are really just an extension of that.
Even then it'd be impossible. Essentially for no conflict to arise between people everyone would have to be limited to a point where even the slightest differences would be eliminated from us. Also no one could be in charge because not everyone would agree on who should be in charge. Everyone would have to be completely identical. They'd all have to have the same amount of money, the same size house, the same everything. Couldn't work.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 08:39 AM
because we are a collection of individuals. and it doesn't take much to divide and convince others their is value in a fight or struggle
Are we really individuals, though? Individuality. The meaning of that word means indivisible. That means a human being who is whole. Such an entity, a whole being, is really an individual, no? I think it is clear that most people are as divided within themselves as society is outside.
Psychologically, most of us are fragmented, not whole. It is no wonder society is as divided and as fragmented as it is.
someone always has a reason...sometimes a good reason. or a cause. and someone will always impose upon others
Why do you think that is, sir?
it reminds me of a movie i saw recently. Apocalypto. peaceful indians of the forest...it was all they knew. one day some different kind of indians came with lives and ideas of their own. took them away and killed them, enslaved them. then the Spaniards came :/
its just...impossible for all of humanity to unite imo. we are all different, man lives peacefully here and there...but not everywhere. and even now we see just as much war and plight on the horizon as anything else.
for humanity to "unite?" this would suggest a permanent condition. it just can't happen imo
Do you think it is impossible because it has never happened?
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 08:42 AM
Even then it'd be impossible. Essentially for no conflict to arise between people everyone would have to be limited to a point where even the slightest differences would be eliminated from us. Also no one could be in charge because not everyone would agree on who should be in charge. Everyone would have to be completely identical. They'd all have to have the same amount of money, the same size house, the same everything. Couldn't work.
Why does anyone need to be in charge? Where does that hierarchical thought structure come from?
Why do differences inherently mean conflict?
RunAmokRampant
09-06-2008, 08:44 AM
because differences lead to alienation and segregation. It's human nature that differences lead to conflict big or small. To cut that out we would have to shed a part of our humanity.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 08:49 AM
because differences lead to alienation and segregation.
Why do you think that is? Why does man feel it necessary to divide himself from fellow man?
It's human nature, to cut that out we would have to shed a part of our humanity.
What is human nature, though? Isn't "human nature" really just another way of saying "man's conditioning?"
ThePalaceOfWisdom
09-06-2008, 08:54 AM
Why does anyone need to be in charge? Where does that hierarchical thought structure come from?
Why do differences inherently mean conflict?
See now you're getting into the psychological side of things. But essentially it's our nature. Just as we strive to achieve our goals, we will always cause a conflict. For example: One person may be incredibly attractive another unattractive. People will automatically pay attention to the attractive person over the unattractive person. This causes the unattractive person to covet the attractive person's appearance. These feelings can lead to actions that affect the attractive person's life.
It's a constant flow of actions causing reactions. If I made $250,000 a year and someone else made $30,000 then that person is going to wish they had the money I have. Certain people will allow this want to influence their actions leading to conflict. It can't be stopped, as for the need for someone to be in charge that comes from a need for order. If no one is in chrage and people start acting on their negative feelings it leads to anarchy and the downfall of society.
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 08:58 AM
See now you're getting into the psychological side of things.
Isn't that where all conflict is rooted?
But essentially it's our nature. Just as we strive to achieve our goals, we will always cause a conflict. For example: One person may be incredibly attractive another unattractive. People will automatically pay attention to the attractive person over the unattractive person. This causes the unattractive person to covet the attractive person's appearance. These feelings can lead to actions that affect the attractive person's life.
It's a constant flow of actions causing reactions. If I made $250,000 a year and someone else made $30,000 then that person is going to wish they had the money I have. Certain people will allow this want to influence their actions leading to conflict. It can't be stopped, as for the need for someone to be in charge that comes from a need for order. If no one is in chrage and people start acting on their negative feelings it leads to anarchy and the downfall of society.
Aren't these "needs" really rooted in a psychological fear, though? The mind's seeking of security, if you will?
JohnXDoe3
09-06-2008, 09:12 AM
Are we really individuals, though? Individuality. The meaning of that word means indivisible. That means a human being who is whole. Such an entity, a whole being, is really an individual, no? I think it is clear that most people are as divided within themselves as society is outside.
Psychologically, most of us are fragmented, not whole. It is no wonder society is as divided and as fragmented as it is.
well i suppose in the simplest meaning of the word (or general or w/e) we are individuals. so thats what i meant. and i think you are right. most people are fragmented, divided, some conflict exists within. so, some might take that conflict and manifest it outside themselves. others might feel the same....soon we have a collection of so called "individuals" in conflict with themselves and in turn others. it seems to just happen. if thats the way it happens
Why do you think that is, sir?
i think because man always has his own ideas. differences exist among people and we seem to always want to show others what is the "right" way. also, just practical things. if their is not enough, people might kill to get some. food, for instance. or resources that help us live. also some men are just treacherous, unstable, cruel. even if MOST of humanity was united their would still be enough who didn't want it and they would disrupt the peace and ultimately bring it down. killing, war, death. these are powerful things. do it once to somebody and somewhere along the line, if you do it enough, they will do it back. there goes your "unity"
i also think its just something about nature. man can be very selfish by nature. you ever see little kids who don't know anything yet? they really don't share. they don't like sharing, it seems to be not in their nature. they have to be taught and told to share. and hopefully they "get it." but often times they don't or when they get older they just don't care. some people, enough people, just want it all. and they will go to any lengths to get it. that doesn't promote unity very well
Do you think it is impossible because it has never happened?
not exactly, but sort of. i think its impossible because in this moment even
as i type we are nothing but a collection of our history up to this point. that history would suggest we are more divided then united and we are united only because we have men with guns and armies telling us to be. otherwise without law, order, and some sort of social / political / religious structure it ALL goes to hell in a hand basket.
IOW what unity we have is already precarious and fragile. and imo, looking at history (in general i'm no expert) this is and has always been about as good as it gets
so yeah, i guess because it has never really happened. and if it did it would have to happen....for a real LONG time to be considered "humanity united"
i would give that set up five minutes, tops
EDIT: first time i've done that "quote box" thing :cool:
ThePalaceOfWisdom
09-06-2008, 09:32 AM
Isn't that where all conflict is rooted?
Aren't these "needs" really rooted in a psychological fear, though? The mind's seeking of security, if you will?
What I meant was the deeper psychology of the mind. They aren't needs they're wants. If the world worked solely on a "needs" basis we wouldn't have an issue. It's when wants come into play that conflict arises. People want their lives to be more comfortable. To achieve this comfort things need to be purchased and to purchase things we need money.
Unfortunately people cannot fill that void in their souls. Do we really need air conditioned homes? We did fine without them for years. Do we need fast food joints on every corner? No but we want them, people refuse to be content with mediocrity and unfortuantely we're always striving for an improvement. Ever since the industrial revolution we've been striving to improve everything. It's what we are, a gain dependent socitey whose sole purpose is to live and be comfortable while we live. This is why this idea of a truly united world is impossible.
It's sort of like Marxism. We just can't be a truly equal race, someone is always going to have something that other's don't. Those people become coveted by others which leads to negative feelings which eventually evolve into hostility. It's how it is. The only possible way a truly united world to exist would be to return us to being a needs oriented society and for that to work we'd need to get rid of all modern and contemporary technology. We'd also have to revamp our entire society's value structure.
It just can't work.
Shell
09-06-2008, 12:21 PM
it would take an absence of greed
BridgeToSolace
09-06-2008, 12:32 PM
Or communal greed.
Common enemy/patsy say what?
Or communal greed.
Common enemy/patsy say what?
yes. i feel that we are stuck in the center.
one sideing being an extreme common struggle that would require the cooperation of the earth and the other side being complete security, serenity, and peace.
The first would be something like Valhala where you fight every day along side your brothers and your wounds are healed the next day. And the other Heaven i guess. [Aaron]
Permanent Solution
09-06-2008, 05:47 PM
I don't think humanity will unite via evolution, we need a stronger external impetus...like the annihilation oh humanity.
peeted
09-06-2008, 06:11 PM
If humanity was about to be anihilated we would fight over who had the best solution.
gregulus
09-06-2008, 06:34 PM
Attn: Totah
Permanent Solution
09-06-2008, 06:40 PM
by annihilation i meant everyone dies for the most part and those left decide it's time to be friends.
Are we really individuals, though? Individuality. The meaning of that word means indivisible. That means a human being who is whole. Such an entity, a whole being, is really an individual, no? I think it is clear that most people are as divided within themselves as society is outside.
Psychologically, most of us are fragmented, not whole. It is no wonder society is as divided and as fragmented as it is.
What the hell does this even mean
Same goes for all the pseudo-psychological references you've made in this page
siva_chair
09-06-2008, 11:24 PM
What the hell does this even mean
It means man cannot be truly an individual if he is divided within himself.
Same goes for all the pseudo-psychological references you've made in this page
I don't see how exactly it is pseudo-psychological. You can explore and see it within your own psychology for yourself.
It means man cannot be truly an individual if he is divided within himself.
In English I meant, not mystic and vague psychological concept-ese
I don't see how exactly it is pseudo-psychological. You can explore and see it within your own psychology for yourself.
What is "divided within yourself"
Is that supposed to be some kind of Freudian crap
siva_chair
09-07-2008, 12:30 AM
In English I meant, not mystic and vague psychological concept-ese
It was in English silly.
What is "divided within yourself"
Is that supposed to be some kind of Freudian crap
Fragmented, not whole, full of divisions. Man separates the content of his consciousness from himself, but man IS the content of his consciousness. He is the content of his psychology, and man's psychology is full of divisions ("me" and "you," "this" and "that," "good" and "evil," and so on and so forth).
And no, it isn't some kind of "Freudian crap."
peeted
09-07-2008, 07:34 AM
Sounds like a bunch of meaningless Hegalian crap to me.
StreetlightRock
09-07-2008, 08:45 AM
Heh, it's interesting, I wonder if anyone here has ever considered that it isn't difference that leads to violence, but the loss of difference? Consider: the Identity of anyone is formed though difference: I am me, because I am not you. I may very well have lots of qualities innate to myself, but to set myself apart from you, I look for difference, not similarity.
However, when I lose that ability to set myself apart from you, when difference is lacking, I have no choice but to reassert my identity. To emphasize difference to claim individual identity. So - I become a 'fundamentalist' or 'nationalist', or 'Socialist' or 'born again Christian' or whatever label or identity I choose to assert. This doesn't imply I will use violence to assert this identity, but it's certainly an ignition key.
I think people live with difference every day and thrive in it. I can look at someone and judge, and scoff, or admire, and feel secure enough in my own identity that I feel no need to define myself in rigid terms, and thus, accept the Other, because i'm not threated by him. Unity only implies some sort of hegemonic social/cultural standard, that that probably leads to far more agitation than the celebration of difference.
siva_chair
09-07-2008, 10:35 AM
Heh, it's interesting, I wonder if anyone here has ever considered that it isn't difference that leads to violence, but the loss of difference? Consider: the Identity of anyone is formed though difference: I am me, because I am not you. I may very well have lots of qualities innate to myself, but to set myself apart from you, I look for difference, not similarity.
However, when I lose that ability to set myself apart from you, when difference is lacking, I have no choice but to reassert my identity. To emphasize difference to claim individual identity. So - I become a 'fundamentalist' or 'nationalist', or 'Socialist' or 'born again Christian' or whatever label or identity I choose to assert. This doesn't imply I will use violence to assert this identity, but it's certainly an ignition key.
I think people live with difference every day and thrive in it. I can look at someone and judge, and scoff, or admire, and feel secure enough in my own identity that I feel no need to define myself in rigid terms, and thus, accept the Other, because i'm not threated by him. Unity only implies some sort of hegemonic social/cultural standard, that that probably leads to far more agitation than the celebration of difference.
These are the divisions I was speaking of. It is within the psychology of man that he makes these divisions. The 'me', the ego, the self, which divides itself as the 'me' and the 'not me', the 'me' that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community, with this group or not with that group, and so on and so forth.
I think this assertion is rooted in fear and the mind's need to find some structure of security. As long as we, both singularly or collectively, seek security, there will be war.
Fragmented, not whole, full of divisions. Man separates the content of his consciousness from himself, but man IS the content of his consciousness. He is the content of his psychology, and man's psychology is full of divisions ("me" and "you," "this" and "that," "good" and "evil," and so on and so forth).
And no, it isn't some kind of "Freudian crap."
Where did you get your doctorate in mystical new age pop psychology from
These are the divisions I was speaking of. It is within the psychology of man that he makes these divisions. The 'me', the ego, the self, which divides itself as the 'me' and the 'not me', the 'me' that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community, with this group or not with that group, and so on and so forth.
I think this assertion is rooted in fear and the mind's need to find some structure of security. As long as we, both singularly or collectively, seek security, there will be war.
You really, really, desperately need to read up on some cognitive and evolutionary psychology
siva_chair
09-07-2008, 10:51 AM
Where did you get your doctorate in mystical new age pop psychology from
Wow good job with the ad hominems. One cannot understand what is being said so one dismisses it as some "mystical new age pop psychology" to try to discredit it. You have such a compelling argument there. :rolleyes:
You really, really, desperately need to read up on some cognitive and evolutionary psychology
I'm not the one that thought what was said was some kind of "Freudian crap."
You sure you are well versed in cognitive and evolutionary psychology to say these sort of things?
Next time try to actually point out what I said that is wrong and why.
StreetlightRock
09-07-2008, 10:52 AM
I think this assertion is rooted in fear and the mind's need to find some structure of security. As long as we, both singularly or collectively, seek security, there will be war.
I disagree, I outlined above why I think difference is important in maintaining stability. Fear is born from threat, it is not innate. To feel threatened, either I am losing my identity, or because I am being assaulted (be it physically, politically, socially or culturally) or a mix of both. You're missing causation in your argument.
siva_chair
09-07-2008, 11:03 AM
I disagree, I outlined above why I think difference is important in maintaining stability. Fear is born from threat, it is not innate. To feel threatened, either I am losing my identity, or because I am being assaulted (be it physically, politically, socially or culturally) or a mix of both. You're missing causation in your argument.
Where does the notion of a threat come from, though? Isn't it not stemming from the psyche's need for security?
I feel I am losing my identity, so I feel threatened. My sense of identity is the security (the structure or pattern my mind has built, the "I" or ego or whatever you wish to call it), and when that security is threatened I become violent, aggressive, because there is fear.
And what do you mean I am missing causation? The causation is the process of the mind's seeking of security. It is because the mind seeks security, that it fear and feels threatened.
free_thinkers_are_dangerous
09-07-2008, 11:06 AM
Man might temporarily unite if there was some sort of imminent disaster that would affect all of us if not taken care of by all (alien invasion, highly contagious lethal virus, etc.), but people would primarily still be looking out for themselves. As soon as the threat was gone for one place, it would stop sticking its head out for the others - if one country sealed its borders from disease, for instance, it would stop risking itself for the health of the other countries. If the easiest way to protect itself was to ally with others, it might do so, but the fundamental goal would still be to save your own ***.
StreetlightRock
09-07-2008, 11:17 AM
And what do you mean I am missing causation? The causation is the process of the mind's seeking of security. It is because the mind seeks security, that it fear and feels threatened.
No, you're almost right, but not quite there. The fact that the mind seeks security does not predispose it to violence. Theres a couple of steps going on here. So we've established that I have identity, which is stable, defined by difference. Also that I need security for this identity, otherwise I will feel threatened, become unstable and (possibily) lash out violently.
Where we differ is that I don't believe we aggressively seek security. The causation is not as you say 'the process of the mind's seeking of security'. The mind may very well seek security, but only actively if it needs to. The causation lies in action. Your actions must threaten me, for me to feel threatened, not simply your difference.
I do not assume that if I see you walking down a street, you will harm me, even though you are different form me. If I see you walking towards me with a big spiked stick, NOW I feel threatened. In the first situation, sure, I may feel a lingering sense of needing security, but I won't act first to beat you up if you pose no threat. Peace is preserved. In the second, I have a reason to be threatened, and react accordingly. My seeking of security is almost wholly dependent on your actions, not an innate fear.
peeted
09-07-2008, 11:41 AM
Next time try to actually point out what I said that is wrong and why.
Its hard to say where your wrong when what you are saying is nonesensical.
"the self harmonises through divide, the mental and physical unify through seperation caused by the inner conflict in which the mind grasps for freedom."
Can you tell me whats wrong with that other than that it makes no sense whatsoever?
free_thinkers_are_dangerous
09-07-2008, 11:55 AM
Its hard to say where your wrong when what you are saying is nonesensical.
"the self harmonises through divide, the mental and physical unify through seperation caused by the inner conflict in which the mind grasps for freedom."
Can you tell me whats wrong with that other than that it makes no sense whatsoever?
well, see, when you try to sing minor 3rds in your head you need to try to separate yourself from your existence, but when you try to play minor 3rds (like on a piano or guitar or something) you need to have your mind and body and soul... ah f\/ck it, i'm stumped.
Wow good job with the ad hominems. One cannot understand what is being said so one dismisses it as some "mystical new age pop psychology" to try to discredit it. You have such a compelling argument there. :rolleyes:
I don't have an argument I'm just pointing out that the stuff you're saying is nonsense
You sure you are well versed in cognitive and evolutionary psychology to say these sort of things?
I'm well versed enough to know that the stuff you're talking about is meaningless nonsense
Its hard to say where your wrong when what you are saying is nonesensical.
"the self harmonises through divide, the mental and physical unify through seperation caused by the inner conflict in which the mind grasps for freedom."
Can you tell me whats wrong with that other than that it makes no sense whatsoever?
123 to this
The stuff you're saying doesn't even mean anything, it seems to be referring to outdated constructs of the mind which aren't needed anymore now that we understand biology and evolution and neurology
No, you're almost right, but not quite there. The fact that the mind seeks security does not predispose it to violence. Theres a couple of steps going on here. So we've established that I have identity, which is stable, defined by difference. Also that I need security for this identity, otherwise I will feel threatened, become unstable and (possibily) lash out violently.
Where we differ is that I don't believe we aggressively seek security. The causation is not as you say 'the process of the mind's seeking of security'. The mind may very well seek security, but only actively if it needs to. The causation lies in action. Your actions must threaten me, for me to feel threatened, not simply your difference.
I do not assume that if I see you walking down a street, you will harm me, even though you are different form me. If I see you walking towards me with a big spiked stick, NOW I feel threatened. In the first situation, sure, I may feel a lingering sense of needing security, but I won't act first to beat you up if you pose no threat. Peace is preserved. In the second, I have a reason to be threatened, and react accordingly. My seeking of security is almost wholly dependent on your actions, not an innate fear.
now apply this post to nations instead of just people.
StreetlightRock
09-07-2008, 09:50 PM
Um, I'm sure you're smart enough to do that yourself. If not, I'll be glad to point you to an entire school International Relations thought that I pretty much stole my argument from in the first place =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_in_international_relations
Wikis article is pure s'hite, but Wendt and his constructivists have done exactly what you're asking.
siva_chair
09-07-2008, 11:06 PM
No, you're almost right, but not quite there. The fact that the mind seeks security does not predispose it to violence. Theres a couple of steps going on here. So we've established that I have identity, which is stable, defined by difference. Also that I need security for this identity, otherwise I will feel threatened, become unstable and (possibily) lash out violently.
There, you said it right there. The mind's seeking of security is what the root of violence is.
Sir, I think if we are to continue this discussion without getting lost in too many abstractions we must discuss what is meant by violence. Are we talking about physical violence, or violence as a whole?
Where we differ is that I don't believe we aggressively seek security. The causation is not as you say 'the process of the mind's seeking of security'. The mind may very well seek security, but only actively if it needs to. The causation lies in action. Your actions must threaten me, for me to feel threatened, not simply your difference.
The mind, seeing it is insecure, seeks security (in something, in images, groups, symbols, ideas, ect.). I say this is violence. I resist, I demand, I desire, which are all forms of resistance. When you say, `I will that', it is a form of resistance and resistance is violence. The mind is creating these groups, these symbols, so that it may identify with them and find security in those things.
Keep in mind I am using the word violence in not only purely physical terms, but in a broader context of human conflict. Physical acts of violence are simply outward expressions of an inner conflict.
I do not assume that if I see you walking down a street, you will harm me, even though you are different form me. If I see you walking towards me with a big spiked stick, NOW I feel threatened. In the first situation, sure, I may feel a lingering sense of needing security, but I won't act first to beat you up if you pose no threat. Peace is preserved. In the second, I have a reason to be threatened, and react accordingly. My seeking of security is almost wholly dependent on your actions, not an innate fear.
Sure. I do not disagree with that. I think the primary difference is that you speaking of violence in a purely physical context, whereas I am speaking of the psychological implications of violence. There is physical violence and also inward violence. Physical violence is to kill another, to hurt other people consciously, deliberately, without thought, to say cruel things, full of antagonism and hate; and inwardly, to dislike people, to hate people, to criticize people. Inwardly, we are always quarrelling, battling, not only with others, but with ourselves. We want people to change, we want to force them to our way of thinking. This is what I mean when I say "violence" in this discussion. Mankind will never be at peace if there is violence, both outside, and within.
Its hard to say where your wrong when what you are saying is nonesensical.
"the self harmonises through divide, the mental and physical unify through seperation caused by the inner conflict in which the mind grasps for freedom."
Can you tell me whats wrong with that other than that it makes no sense whatsoever?
Well first you say it harmonizes by dividing and then you say it unifies through seperation. That seems pretty contradictory.
I don't have an argument I'm just pointing out that the stuff you're saying is nonsense
Your lack of reading comprehension isn't the fault of the speaker.
I'm well versed enough to know that the stuff you're talking about is meaningless nonsense
Show that it is nonsense, then. What is nonsensical about what has been said?
123 to this
The stuff you're saying doesn't even mean anything, it seems to be referring to outdated constructs of the mind which aren't needed anymore now that we understand biology and evolution and neurology
Outdated constructs of the mind? Which one's would those be? And we understand biology and evolution and neurology so we don't need to understand human psychology? If this is so, why do we still have violence, both inward and outward? You haven't done anything to show how the study of biology and evolution and neurology have anything to do with what is being discussed here.
Mr. Ron
09-07-2008, 11:06 PM
We are united through many ways we may not like to admit.
SugarCoatedSour
09-07-2008, 11:10 PM
I'm a **** up and so is everyone else. That's step one.
sLarkin20
09-08-2008, 12:29 AM
I'm pretty sure as long as there are people of different race, nationality, really anything that makes someone different from another person, then all of humanity isn't going to be united.
StreetlightRock
09-08-2008, 12:29 AM
Keep in mind I am using the word violence in not only purely physical terms, but in a broader context of human conflict. Physical acts of violence are simply outward expressions of an inner conflict.
Ah, there we go. In which case, I disagree that you can so easily equate security, even psychological security, with violence. Until difference is manifested in violence (and not just physical, but also, say, cultural, political and social repression), the 'violence' you talk of is purely psychological. And I don't think it deserves to be called violence, but rather difference. The distinction isn't just semantic - violence I think still implies harm, and the mind cannot harm the Other by itself.
And beyond that, I don't think this difference (or what you might perhaps call internalized violence) should be repressed, or done away with. I think we should celebrate it. I think that once constructed identities are seen concrete by the subject, once we can accept that I am not you and you are not me, that is a start for peace, for for violence. If I am secure enough in my identity, my recognition of difference (of you), will not result me going to hurt you, but to accept you, and leave it at that, unless your actions threaten me.
Maybe you will steal my woman, and maybe I will burn down your house in revenge. But at least I'm not doing it because I hate who you are, just what you've done. Difference and psychological violence have no role in this scenario, both are irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure as long as there are people of different race, nationality, really anything that makes someone different from another person, then all of humanity isn't going to be united.
Then f'uck unity, viva la difference. Accept and educate, live amongst. Unity as you're talking about is more violent than difference, for whose unity are you going to subscribe to? Whose unity do we impose on difference? Why unite when we can celebrate difference? Theres no reason we have to fight difference, none at all, not unless you start to tell me your way of doing things is better than my way.
Sure difference may be the basis for violence, but its all you're going to get, so were going to have to work for peace within that. To appeal to some abstract ideal of 'unity' is unrealistic and naive. To accept difference may also be some lofty ideal, but its much less dangerous and still infinitely more doable than some prescribed unity.
sameness is not required for unity. If people are secure with the differences of others, and accept that different people have different practices, beliefs, and morals, unity becomes so much easier. The only problem that still exists with this is where to draw the line. its a lot easier to accept that someone likes pain during sex then if someone likes killing the person they are haing sex with.
basically: To accept difference may also be some lofty ideal, but its much less dangerous and still infinitely more doable than some prescribed unity.
StreetlightRock
09-08-2008, 12:51 AM
sameness is not required for unity
Fair point, bit of a straw man I may be railing on about then, lol.
McP3000
09-08-2008, 01:01 AM
sameness is not required for unity. If people are secure with the differences of others, and accept that different people have different practices, beliefs, and morals, unity becomes so much easier. The only problem that still exists with this is where to draw the line. its a lot easier to accept that someone likes pain during sex then if someone likes killing the person they are haing sex with.
basically:
okay the ending comparison was weird as ****
and you assume that people have the ability to truly accept differences
like S&M vs Gently Ridin' Dirty.
i don't know if i can ever ride a bitch gently again
sLarkin20
09-08-2008, 01:05 AM
Let me expand on what I said about differences.
As long as there are differences between people and there are some people that can't accept those differences, which is basically guaranteed to happen with human beings unless someday everyone magically becomes accepting of one another, then I don't think unity is possible.
StreetlightRock
09-08-2008, 01:09 AM
which is basically guaranteed to happen with human beings unless someday everyone magically becomes accepting of one another
Its not magic man. Talk a walk down your street, somewhere in Florida, I assume. Look around you. You might see some violence yes, but for the most part, people can and have been living with differences. Violence has and will always be a phenomenon that doesn't even begin to compare to the practice of peace. This isn't theory.
sLarkin20
09-08-2008, 01:12 AM
I just think it's the root of a lot of problems and issues, especially some that are going on right now.
siva_chair
09-08-2008, 01:17 AM
Ah, there we go. In which case, I disagree that you can so easily equate security, even psychological security, with violence. Until difference is manifested in violence (and not just physical, but also, say, cultural, political and social repression), the 'violence' you talk of is purely psychological. And I don't think it deserves to be called violence, but rather difference. The distinction isn't just semantic - violence I think still implies harm, and the mind cannot harm the Other by itself.
Of course it is psychological. We are talking about human relationships.
But do you see how the outward violence is just a reflection of the inner violence and conflict. This violence (to which you are referring to as difference) is created by the psyche. The mind is dividing things, creating these differences, these divisions and these divisions lead to conflict.
And beyond that, I don't think this difference (or what you might perhaps call internalized violence) should be repressed, or done away with. I think we should celebrate it. I think that once constructed identities are seen concrete by the subject, once we can accept that I am not you and you are not me, that is a start for peace, for for violence. If I am secure enough in my identity, my recognition of difference (of you), will not result me going to hurt you, but to accept you, and leave it at that, unless your actions threaten me.
That which makes me "me" and you "not me" is the culmination of memory, of the past, the accumulation of conditioning by my environment, my culture, my thoughts, ect. We see contradiction in us and about us. Because we are in contradiction, there is lack of peace in us and therefore outside us. There is in us a constant state of denial and assertion. That is, what we want to be and what we are.
And I see what you are saying, and for the most part agree, but I think it goes deeper than just "accepting our differences." I think it is important to understand the root of these differences.
Maybe you will steal my woman, and maybe I will burn down your house in revenge. But at least I'm not doing it because I hate who you are, just what you've done. Difference and psychological violence have no role in this scenario, both are irrelevant.
Ahh but the memory of what I have done is all part of the psychological image you have built of me. That memory, that action and response, is rooted in the image you have of myself and the relationship between us. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security: religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs, ect. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking in his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form, and the superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment.
Then f'uck unity, viva la difference. Accept and educate, live amongst. Unity as you're talking about is more violent than difference, for whose unity are you going to subscribe to? Whose unity do we impose on difference? Why unite when we can celebrate difference? Theres no reason we have to fight difference, none at all, not unless you start to tell me your way of doing things is better than my way.
I am not speaking of imposing anything on anyone. Just commenting that the only way man will bring an end to the violence and conflict in his environment is to understand it within himself. This is why I said a radical revolution of the psychology of mankind is what is needed for man to understand conflict and violence and then bring it to an end.
(I understand that last bit wasn't necessarily directed at me)
StreetlightRock
09-08-2008, 01:18 AM
I'm off to work, but ill reply later =)
okay the ending comparison was weird as ****
and you assume that people have the ability to truly accept differences
like S&M vs Gently Ridin' Dirty.
i don't know if i can ever ride a bitch gently again
haha we were talking about S&M so i just kinda whipped that one out.
i believe that people DO have the ability to accept difference. If they dont, they need to be beaten until they do. Their intolerance is why there is still racism, sexism, homophobia, ect.ect.ect.
siva_chair
09-08-2008, 01:26 AM
I'm off to work, but ill reply later =)
That is fine. Take your time. I'm glad we have been able to keep this discussion civil.
McP3000
09-08-2008, 01:43 AM
haha we were talking about S&M so i just kinda whipped that one out.
i believe that people DO have the ability to accept difference. If they dont, they need to be beaten until they do. Their intolerance is why there is still racism, sexism, homophobia, ect.ect.ect.
you do realize how utterly hypocritical this is
how stupid do i sound? it was metaphorical. i guess these type of things dont translate well in text. i thought this was a musician's forum.
Ok mother teresa, If they dont, they need to be shown how easily accepting difference is and how much better it makes your life. They need to be put into a situation where they have to confront difference and overcome it.
peeted
09-08-2008, 08:22 AM
It was in English silly.
Fragmented, not whole, full of divisions. Man separates the content of his consciousness from himself, but man IS the content of his consciousness. He is the content of his psychology, and man's psychology is full of divisions ("me" and "you," "this" and "that," "good" and "evil," and so on and so forth).
And no, it isn't some kind of "Freudian crap."
Saying man seperates the content of his consiousness from himself and then saying that man is the content of his consiousness doesnt really make much sense. If he IS the content of his consiousness how is it possible for him to seperate it from himself? Once its seperated there will be no self to do the seperating. Its like saying "the butter seperates the butteryness from itself" It makes no sense.
And even if this is possible (if it is you really need to explain how) what reason do we have to think its the case?
JohnXDoe3
09-08-2008, 08:30 AM
i think a "free love" society would work
just line the ladies up outside my door.....i'll "unite" them :smoke:
siva_chair
09-08-2008, 09:21 AM
Saying man seperates the content of his consiousness from himself and then saying that man is the content of his consiousness doesnt really make much sense. If he IS the content of his consiousness how is it possible for him to seperate it from himself? Once its seperated there will be no self to do the seperating. Its like saying "the butter seperates the butteryness from itself" It makes no sense.
Thought creates the thinker. That is, thought creates an entity which it calls the observer, the experiencer, the permanent thinker as distinct from the impermanent thought. The thinker is the thought. We would like it to be different so that the thinker may explain the things to himself by means of the thought.
Or, as physicist David Bohm put it:
"The general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence"."
And even if this is possible (if it is you really need to explain how) what reason do we have to think its the case?
Because if one is attentive, one can observe this in himself. Not theoretically or conceptually, but actually observe this process.
StreetlightRock
09-08-2008, 09:42 AM
So I'm tired and not quite in the mood for deep thinking but i'll give a cursory attempt anyway 'cause I like this topic:
violence (to which you are referring to as difference) is created by the psyche. The mind is dividing things, creating these differences, these divisions and these divisions lead to conflict.
Just to start out, I pretty much agree with you on pretty much everything then, with the exception that I don't think that the division in the mind inevitably leads to conflict. It certainly can and does, but thats not the only path. I'm arguing that difference has the potential to lead not only to conflict, but to peace. Which is why I object to equating these divisions to violence. They can lead to conflict yes, but alternatively, they can also lead to resolution.
I was definitely oversimplifying when I said all we need is to do is accept - the interaction between me and the Other are immeasurably important as well in defining identity. And interaction can leave not just negative, but positive images as well:
Ahh but the memory of what I have done is all part of the psychological image you have built of me.
Yepyep, you're right, but the great thing about experience is that it is malleable. Experience can be changed, reworked and relived in different ways. The structure of the mind does not dictate a violent outcome. These images of the mind you call burden can just as easily become images of acceptance and even love of the Other.
the only way man will bring an end to the violence and conflict in his environment is to understand it within himself. This is why I said a radical revolution of the psychology of mankind is what is needed for man to understand conflict and violence and then bring it to an end.
I don't think its as radical as you make it out to be. As I said, we don't need to understand, although it certainly helps. As cliche as it may be, all we need to do is be nice. It really does just boil down to that. We don't need to rework our psyche, we just need to rework our actions. Which is, I understand, no mean feat.
siva_chair
09-08-2008, 10:04 AM
So I'm tired and not quite in the mood for deep thinking but i'll give a cursory attempt anyway 'cause I like this topic:
Just to start out, I pretty much agree with you on pretty much everything then, with the exception that I don't think that the division in the mind inevitably leads to conflict. It certainly can and does, but thats not the only path. I'm arguing that difference has the potential to lead not only to conflict, but to peace. Which is why I object to equating these divisions to violence. They can lead to conflict yes, but alternatively, they can also lead to resolution.
I think most of our "disagreement" is pretty much semantic in nature.
I am pretty much saying that division in the mind "is" conflict. Perhaps it does not inherently always express itself outwardly, but at it's root that IS conflict.
I was definitely oversimplifying when I said all we need is to do is accept - the interaction between me and the Other are immeasurably important as well in defining identity. And interaction can leave not just negative, but positive images as well:
Of course. You call me smart or attractive, you flatter me in some way, that shapes and conditions my image of you. It is all still the same process. There is the thinker, the censor, the observer. There is always this duality. The same process of recording, of memory.
We often focus on the content of thought, yet neglect to observe the process of thought.
Yepyep, you're right, but the great thing about experience is that it is malleable. Experience can be changed, reworked and relived in different ways. The structure of the mind does not dictate a violent outcome. These images of the mind you call burden can just as easily become images of acceptance and even love of the Other.
This can of course lead us to explore the question of love and acceptance and all of that. Is love an idea? Is love the product of thought? All these things. But we will quickly derail the thread if we were to do that.
I don't think its as radical as you make it out to be. As I said, we don't need to understand, although it certainly helps. As cliche as it may be, all we need to do is be nice. It really does just boil down to that. We don't need to rework our psyche, we just need to rework our actions. Which is, I understand, no mean feat.
If we do not understand, how can we bring to an end this thing we call conflict. Even if we were to somehow end all violence outwardly (which I do not think is possible, as I hold that outward violence is just a projection of inward violence), how is that to end man's suffering and his conflict within his psychology? If he is violent within and forces himself to suppress that violence ("I am violent, I must not be violent" i.e. "I am this, I wish to be that or I should be that"), that is a conflict in of itself.
Show that it is nonsense, then. What is nonsensical about what has been said?
I think you missed the part where we told you it's impossible to tell you WHAT is nonsensical about it. If the words are meaningless, what am I supposed to tell you?
Outdated constructs of the mind? Which one's would those be? And we understand biology and evolution and neurology so we don't need to understand human psychology? If this is so, why do we still have violence, both inward and outward? You haven't done anything to show how the study of biology and evolution and neurology have anything to do with what is being discussed here.
No
I'm saying it's retarded to try and use outdated psychological concepts that have no bearing on reality now that we have new ones which do have basis in fact and aren't just being used as filler until somebody discovers neurology
DekWannaBFlea
09-08-2008, 11:48 AM
The breaking down of ignorance, the creation of more understanding, and a great expansion of technology.
We all need to cultivate metta and realize that we're all human beings.
Let me elaborate
The phrases "mentally fragmented" and "divided within yourself" and so on and so forth are meaningless
The reason is that they are metaphors that don't have an actual referent
If I ask you to explain to me in concrete terms what the hell those things mean, you won't be able to because these ideas derive from concepts of mind that were basically created to help people study the mind back before we understood what made it tick
The mind is not composed of mystical drives and forces and energies, it's the result of physical and chemical processes in the brain, which was formed by billions of years of evolution. Now that we understand this there's no reason to talk about ids and egos and such things anymore.
McP3000
09-08-2008, 01:26 PM
The breaking down of ignorance, the creation of more understanding, and a great expansion of technology.
Now, how does one do the first two?
And how does the second one have any bearing on the acceptance of difference?
That statement sounded very 1984-ish if i do say so myself.
breaking down of ignorance and more understanding sound totalitarian to you? sheesh.
i think he means, we need to learn to accept diverse points of view as well as understanding that we all are human beings stuck in this world together, with thoughts and feelings and desires just like everybody else. its not had to do that, you just have to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. its called empathy, homie.
What is 1984 ish about understanding and breaking down of ignorance
peeted
09-08-2008, 03:03 PM
Im no big fan of evolutionary psychology, it just seems like speculative unfalsifyable dinner party psychology to me. And I dont think that psychology can be reduced to biology alone, but what silvachair is saying still doesnt make sense, even that Bohem stuff seems confused. The concept of self used Is vauge and seems to have diffrent functions in diffrent sentences.
breaking down of ignorance and more understanding sound totalitarian to you? sheesh.
i think he means, we need to learn to accept diverse points of view as well as understanding that we all are human beings stuck in this world together, with thoughts and feelings and desires just like everybody else. its not had to do that, you just have to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. its called empathy, homie.
!!:wave:
Iscariot
09-08-2008, 05:56 PM
a common hatred of jaylink
it worked wonders for these forums
sweboy
09-08-2008, 06:30 PM
a common hatred of jaylink
it worked wonders for these forums
If these hands would only kill.
They'd cleanse the world with its own blood.
They'd cleanse the world, if these hands would only kill.
These hand should cleanse your soul of the lust and the greed of this world.
And they call me a fool as they do so well.
Destroy the morality none have known for so long if ever at all
And I would lay down my life to birth a new generation of a righteous culture.
To a people I could proudly love and cherish.
For that's all I've ever asked for and been deprived of.
Not a tear for those of flesh
Not a stayed hand for a world that prostitutes itself.
Not a minute more of degeneration.
Words cannot express my disappointment.
Words cannot express my disapproval.
So I hate.
I hate a world that's capable of triumph.
Do I stand idly by and let this world disintegrate.
This world will pass away, and my emotions with it.
Why should I strive for acceptance and peace of mind.
A Profound Hatred of Jay
TBrown87
09-08-2008, 06:44 PM
Adrien Veidt's plan ftw.
Im no big fan of evolutionary psychology, it just seems like speculative unfalsifyable dinner party psychology to me.
Then you should probably read up on it some more
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 12:59 AM
I think you missed the part where we told you it's impossible to tell you WHAT is nonsensical about it. If the words are meaningless, what am I supposed to tell you?
The words are not meaningless.
No
I'm saying it's retarded to try and use outdated psychological concepts that have no bearing on reality now that we have new ones which do have basis in fact and aren't just being used as filler until somebody discovers neurology
What outdated psychological concepts are you talking about. You keep going on about this saying we have these other models without actually showing how that even applies to what is being discussed here.
Let me elaborate
The phrases "mentally fragmented" and "divided within yourself" and so on and so forth are meaningless
No, it is very easy to see. Look, if the mind says there is "me" and the "not me," that is a division. This division is in the content of consciousness. This isn't hard to see.
The reason is that they are metaphors that don't have an actual referent
If I ask you to explain to me in concrete terms what the hell those things mean, you won't be able to because these ideas derive from concepts of mind that were basically created to help people study the mind back before we understood what made it tick
What concepts would those be? What are these supposed "new" models of the mind that make us understand how it ticks you keep referring to.
Your argument has basically amounted to "Well we know stuff now so that is incorrect."
The mind is not composed of mystical drives and forces and energies, it's the result of physical and chemical processes in the brain, which was formed by billions of years of evolution. Now that we understand this there's no reason to talk about ids and egos and such things anymore.
That is silly of course there is a reason to talk about egos.
Also, since you seem so very content that consciousness is all figured out perhaps you should research the "problem of consciousness."
Then you should probably read up on it some more
It doesn't sound like you really understand it so maybe you should take your own advice.
There are many many criticisms and controversies surrounding EP, so it is far from being something that has been proven as fact.
guitrguy
09-09-2008, 01:00 AM
Is EP similar to meme theory?
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 01:09 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
guitrguy
09-09-2008, 01:10 AM
ok so its not.
Smokey D
09-09-2008, 01:24 AM
No, it is very easy to see. Look, if the mind says there is "me" and the "not me," that is a division. This division is in the content of consciousness. This isn't hard to see.
I don't understand how this tells us anything.
If I distinguish between me and you, I have made a distinction. But it doesn't follow that my consciousness is divided.
Also, since you seem so very content that consciousness is all figured out perhaps you should research the "problem of consciousness."
I can appreciate the problem of consciousness but you're using id, ego (and implicitly super ego) in a very loose way when they're pretty precisely defined technical concepts and it's making it hard to follow.
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 02:17 AM
I don't understand how this tells us anything.
If I distinguish between me and you, I have made a distinction. But it doesn't follow that my consciousness is divided.
What constitutes "me" and "you," all the images, the memory, ect. is the content of consciousness. There is a clear division between "me" and "not me" and that division is within the content of consciousness.
I can appreciate the problem of consciousness but you're using id, ego (and implicitly super ego) in a very loose way when they're pretty precisely defined technical concepts and it's making it hard to follow.
Not at all. The ego is the "me" The collection of "my desires," "my thoughts," ect. It is the center. This center of experience and sensation.
peeted
09-09-2008, 08:01 AM
Then you should probably read up on it some more
I have studied it as part of my course at uni.
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 08:43 AM
I have studied it as part of my course at uni.
But it is obvious that you just don't get it because otherwise you would agree with it because it is so obviously correct and all other theories of mind are outdated and silly! :amaze:
:p
sweboy
09-09-2008, 09:24 AM
How to explain the mind?
A. View the mind as a product of physical processes and use scientific methods to draw conclusions about it (evolutionary psychology, behavioural genetics, neuroscience).
B. Let some 20th century philosophers with big beards sit at home and make up arbitary and un-testable ideas and concepts that views the mind as something disconnected from the rest of the universe (traditional psychology).
Take your pick!!
peeted
09-09-2008, 09:33 AM
The thing is evolutionary psychology isnt testable. You can come up with multiple models in EP that will make the exact same predictions.
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 09:42 AM
There is a difference between philosophy of mind and science of mind.
Pop music sucks
09-09-2008, 09:51 AM
It's been postulated that in order for the human race to be united, we must all be the same.
That, even though it is extremely improbable, may occur if the Large Hadron Collider creates a strangelet. Said theoretical strangelet would cascade and catalyze creating more strangelets until macroscopity. Then it could encompass all of Earth until it its consumed into a quark star.
>.>
<.<
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 10:33 AM
there is always going to be diversity in humans but that should not preclude us from being united as humans in a common goal which must be the preservation of the ecosystem of earth and the development of medicine that can cure our illnesses and is is accessible to all. also, it wouldn't hurt to hit religion a kick in the sack, but the real way to create unity would be to stop siva posting in some of these threads, from time to time, hehehehehe
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 10:44 AM
there is always going to be diversity in humans but that should not preclude us from being united as humans in a common goal which must be the preservation of the ecosystem of earth and the development of medicine that can cure our illnesses and is is accessible to all. also, it wouldn't hurt to hit religion a kick in the sack, but the real way to create unity would be to stop siva posting in some of these threads, from time to time, hehehehehe
Yes because I am the great divider.
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 10:47 AM
indeed, thanks to the pair of you
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 11:19 AM
You are more than welcome to try and make us stop.
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 11:26 AM
lol, king of the castle, eh!
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 11:33 AM
No castle.
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 11:38 AM
surely you can't be a king with out the castle, unless you are king of the hill
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 11:39 AM
No king. More like Shogun. :)
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 11:40 AM
a mitsubishi then
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 11:45 AM
Toyota
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 11:49 AM
http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee345/iansutherland3/shogun/truck001.jpg
siva_chair
09-09-2008, 11:52 AM
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Japan/02/shibano/nob.jpg
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 12:05 PM
i rather fight the car
No, it is very easy to see. Look, if the mind says there is "me" and the "not me," that is a division. This division is in the content of consciousness. This isn't hard to see.
What does that have to do with being "divided within yourself"
are you saying people are supposed to realize that there is no division between themselves and the external world
because that would be retarded
Your argument has basically amounted to "Well we know stuff now so that is incorrect."
That's really all it should take
It doesn't sound like you really understand it so maybe you should take your own advice.
uhhh
There are many many criticisms and controversies surrounding EP, so it is far from being something that has been proven as fact.
There's lots of criticisms surrounding any field
It's still largely self-evident if you understand evolution
The thing is evolutionary psychology isnt testable. You can come up with multiple models in EP that will make the exact same predictions.
Obviously anything to do with evolution is not empirically testable
That hasn't stopped evolution from being the vastly overwhelmingly accepted theory in biology and evolutionary psychology is the logical progression of it
And anyway it's not supposed to be the sole school of psychology, it addresses some different questions than other schools of thought but it does get rid of the need for quite a few meaningless constructs and concepts
peeted
09-09-2008, 01:51 PM
Give some examples of meaningless constructs that EP has got rid of. I dont know if evolutionary psychology is really the logical progression of evolutionary theory. Fair enough our brains and therefore minds are the result of evolution but the evolution occured on the prehistoric savanas, and so really the only actual insights it can give are speculative. Im not saying that EP is completley useless (it plays a none confirmable explanatory role in cognative science), but i deffinatley wouldnt give it the status you are, as some sort of slayer of out dated constructs of the mind...
Give some examples of meaningless constructs that EP has got rid of. I dont know if evolutionary psychology is really the logical progression of evolutionary theory. Fair enough our brains and therefore minds are the result of evolution but the evolution occured on the prehistoric savanas, and so really the only actual insights it can give are speculative. Im not saying that EP is completley useless (it plays a none confirmable explanatory role in cognative science), but i deffinatley wouldnt give it the status you are, as some sort of slayer of out dated constructs of the mind...
It's not the sole slayer of outdated constructs of the mind I wasn't trying to say that and as I was saying it's not and isn't suppose to be a lone, valid approach to psychology
However now that we do understand biology and neurology and so forth we can stop talking about crap like superegos and ids and collective unconsciouses and mystical "drives" and so on and so forth, and instead view these things as what they are, which is quite explicable products of biological engineering by natural selection. And completely nebulous ideas such as "being divided within oneself" that have no actual meaning can be dismissed altogether.
DekWannaBFlea
09-09-2008, 02:52 PM
breaking down of ignorance and more understanding sound totalitarian to you? sheesh.
i think he means, we need to learn to accept diverse points of view as well as understanding that we all are human beings stuck in this world together, with thoughts and feelings and desires just like everybody else. its not had to do that, you just have to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. its called empathy, homie.
Sorry if it was too vague. It's not like I said to accept the party's rule or something. You're correct in your analysis.
peeted
09-09-2008, 03:13 PM
It's not the sole slayer of outdated constructs of the mind I wasn't trying to say that and as I was saying it's not and isn't suppose to be a lone, valid approach to psychology
However now that we do understand biology and neurology and so forth we can stop talking about crap like superegos and ids and collective unconsciouses and mystical "drives" and so on and so forth, and instead view these things as what they are, which is quite explicable products of biological engineering by natural selection. And completely nebulous ideas such as "being divided within oneself" that have no actual meaning can be dismissed altogether.
Ah, you see i dont think there was ever a need to talk about crap like ids and egos and being divided within ones self in the first place.
keyboardxmosh
09-09-2008, 03:13 PM
seriously, if people would just ****ing circle pit
mph4ever
09-09-2008, 03:53 PM
AAA, all the way
Ah, you see i dont think there was ever a need to talk about crap like ids and egos and being divided within ones self in the first place.
You weren't the one I was addressing that stuff to either :)
siva_chair
09-10-2008, 12:15 AM
What does that have to do with being "divided within yourself"
Everything.
are you saying people are supposed to realize that there is no division between themselves and the external world
because that would be retarded
Is it retarded because you don't like the idea?
The external world is a projection of the internal world. Your thoughts, your ideas, your beliefs, your prejudices, your likes/dislikes, your experiences, ect are all the content of your consciousness. The content of the world is the content of your consciousness. When you see me, or your wife, or your neighbor, ect. you are seeing an image you are projecting thought. You can observe this within yourself.
That's really all it should take
That isn't the way it works.
uhhh
I didn't stutter.
There's lots of criticisms surrounding any field
It's still largely self-evident if you understand evolution
No, it isn't self-evident. Get off it.
Obviously anything to do with evolution is not empirically testable
That hasn't stopped evolution from being the vastly overwhelmingly accepted theory in biology and evolutionary psychology is the logical progression of it
:lol:
And anyway it's not supposed to be the sole school of psychology, it addresses some different questions than other schools of thought but it does get rid of the need for quite a few meaningless constructs and concepts
Hardly.
It's not the sole slayer of outdated constructs of the mind I wasn't trying to say that and as I was saying it's not and isn't suppose to be a lone, valid approach to psychology
However now that we do understand biology and neurology and so forth we can stop talking about crap like superegos and ids and collective unconsciouses and mystical "drives" and so on and so forth, and instead view these things as what they are, which is quite explicable products of biological engineering by natural selection. And completely nebulous ideas such as "being divided within oneself" that have no actual meaning can be dismissed altogether.
How does understanding biology and neurology dismiss the idea of ego? Ego, Superego, ID, ect are all functions of the mind not actual somatic structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience.
Also, you have yet to back up any of your claims, at all.
Everything.
At this point it's high time for you to explain what the hell "being divided or fragmented within yourself" means
In real terms not foggy mystical ones
The external world is a projection of the internal world.
Oh dear God
I just threw up in my mouth
I mean from a philosophical standpoint maybe but we're talking about science here
How does understanding biology and neurology dismiss the idea of ego.
Depends what you mean by ego
In the classical Freudian sense most certainly because we no longer need to view the mind as a series of clashing entities fighting for control of a body
Also, you have yet to back up any of your claims, at all.
I haven't said anything that isn't commonly accepted knowledge (or should be) so there's nothing to really back up
siva_chair
09-10-2008, 01:26 AM
At this point it's high time for you to explain what the hell "being divided or fragmented within yourself" means
In real terms not foggy mystical ones
I've explained it several times already.
It's not my fault you don't understand basic English.
Oh dear God
I just threw up in my mouth
I mean from a philosophical standpoint maybe but we're talking about science here
We are talking about the unity of humankind here. This discussion was never about physical structures in the brain.
Depends what you mean by ego
In the classical Freudian sense most certainly because we no longer need to view the mind as a series of clashing entities fighting for control of a body
The bundle of desires, the center, the "me," ect. I am not concerned with Freud and his theories I am concerned with the content of consciousness which is common to all of us. You can observe this yourself you don't need to quote or repeat something someone wrote in a book or anything like that. Observe this process of thought in yourself.
I haven't said anything that isn't commonly accepted knowledge (or should be) so there's nothing to really back up
That is silly. Your argument thus far has been "evolutionary psychology explains it" without actually explaining anything. Just because a group of individuals with PhDs believe it to explain behavior of the mind doesn't mean you get to fall back on "well commonly accepted knowlege."
you know what it would take, ive figured it out.
SEX. yeah i going freud on you [non]****ers. if everyone just ****ed and was happy about it. we would all get along. the reason that the world doesnt **** enpough is because population is already growing out of control and the chinese are takin over hahahahaha. first things ****ing last. im drunk.
for christsake people on the other side of the earth dress their women in black cloaks!
the reson that women in america dress like sluts is because we dont **** enough anbd they are trying to match other sides of the earth in relication by temption men by dressing like whores!
WTF are we doing sitting on the computer get out there and make some ****ing babies! haha im gonna laugh at the post whern i wake up gagaga
in other news: siva chair wins.
I've explained it several times already.
It's not my fault you don't understand basic English.
I asked you to explain it in real, meaningful terms
you didn't
I also wanted to know how it connected to preventing humankind from uniting
We are talking about the unity of humankind here. This discussion was never about physical structures in the brain.
It was when you started bringing up vague metaphors of the mind
The bundle of desires, the center, the "me," ect. I am not concerned with Freud and his theories I am concerned with the content of consciousness which is common to all of us. You can observe this yourself you don't need to quote or repeat something someone wrote in a book or anything like that. Observe this process of thought in yourself.
OK we agree that consciousness exists and is important
Now how is it "divided" other than distinguishing oneself from the external world which is a rather central and basic cognitive function
That is silly. Your argument thus far has been "evolutionary psychology explains it" without actually explaining anything. Just because a group of individuals with PhDs believe it to explain behavior of the mind doesn't mean you get to fall back on "well commonly accepted knowlege."
Once again, what have I said that isn't common knowledge
Not that the brain is a biological machine and all its functions can be traced back to biology
Not that evolution shaped that brain and that looking at evolutionary science gives great insights into how it works
Not that the advent of biology, neurology, and cognitive science/evolutionary psych has revolutionized psychology and removed the need for many of the vague, baseless and indiscrete concepts of the past
siva_chair
09-10-2008, 07:00 AM
I asked you to explain it in real, meaningful terms
you didn't
Your thoughts, your ideas, your beliefs, your prejudices, your likes/dislikes, your experiences, ect are all the content of your consciousness. The content of the world is the content of your consciousness. When you see me, or your wife, or your neighbor, ect. you are seeing an image you are projecting thought. You can observe this within yourself.
I guess it is meaningless if you don't understand English.
I also wanted to know how it connected to preventing humankind from uniting
Read the thread if you want to know I'm not going to repeat it.
It was when you started bringing up vague metaphors of the mind
Nothing vague about them unless you are an idiot.
Are you an idiot?
OK we agree that consciousness exists and is important
Now how is it "divided" other than distinguishing oneself from the external world which is a rather central and basic cognitive function
I've said it many times already if you don't understand it then I can't help you.
Once again, what have I said that isn't common knowledge
All you have said is "Evolutionary psychology, neurology, evolution evolution evolution."
Not that the brain is a biological machine and all its functions can be traced back to biology
Yeah no one has disputed that. The brain should not be equated with mind. The brain is a mass of squishy matter in your skull and the mind is the content of consciousness.
Not that evolution shaped that brain and that looking at evolutionary science gives great insights into how it works
Sure how it works physically.
Not that the advent of biology, neurology, and cognitive science/evolutionary psych has revolutionized psychology and removed the need for many of the vague, baseless and indiscrete concepts of the past
Ok this would be where you actually demonstrate how it is explained away ego. I think it is pretty obvious that ego exists. The concept of "I" demonstrates that.
sweboy
09-10-2008, 07:40 AM
The brain should not be equated with mind. The brain is a mass of squishy matter in your skull and the mind is the content of consciousness.
The mind is what the brain does. Study the brain and you will learn about the mind.
Sure how it works physically.
Yes, and the mind is the consequence of strictly physical processes. The new psychology (EP, behavioral genetics, neuroscience etc.) is based on that insight; that everything that happens in the mind correlates to things that happen in the physical univese, and can thus in theory be detected by studying that physical universe.
Ok this would be where you actually demonstrate how it is explained away ego. I think it is pretty obvious that ego exists. The concept of "I" demonstrates that.
Freud's ego is not something that actually "exists", it's a model trying to explain an aspect of the mind. There's really two kinds of models you can use to understand the mind - the first is those of Freud and other old school psychologists; abstract models with concepts made up specifically for the purpose of explaining a certain aspect of the mind. The second model is the model of the universe that all other natural sciences use, using already existing concepts and facts about the universe, and this is the model that will render old school psychology obsolete. There's no point in using abstract models saying "the super-ego inhibits the id and blah blah" when you instead can say what actually happens on a physical level in the brain.
Your thoughts, your ideas, your beliefs, your prejudices, your likes/dislikes, your experiences, ect are all the content of your consciousness. The content of the world is the content of your consciousness. When you see me, or your wife, or your neighbor, ect. you are seeing an image you are projecting thought. You can observe this within yourself.
OK
What does this have to do with being "divided within yourself"
Nothing vague about them unless you are an idiot.
Are you an idiot?
I'm not introducing retarded ad hominem attacks so I'd go with "no"
All you have said is "Evolutionary psychology, neurology, evolution evolution evolution."
OK let me give an example of how evolutionary psych can abolish the use of nebulous concepts
I just read an article wherein the researchers were looking at something called "terror management theory." This claims that the anxiety caused by pondering death will lead people to affirm the meaning of their own lives; one way in which this manifests is that they will strengthen their belief in the idealogies of their in-group.
The problem I'd point out with this is that first of all, it has the classic view of anxiety as a problem to be overcome instead of an adaptation created by evolution to accomplish purposes. The research seeks to find a more sensible role for anxiety. Their hypothesis was that certain situations, in which it would be beneficial for a person to have the support of a social group, would lead people to strengthen their bonds with that group for the sake of getting themselves firmly into it.
The studies showed that people who contemplated various threats which could be protected from by being part of a strong supportive group, did indeed strengthen their support for the idealogies of their personal in-group and increase their distaste for views that were against their own.
The moral of the story? Researchers took a theory which rested on outdated ideas - that anxiety is an underlying monster that attacks people from their subconscious, driving them to banish it - and proposes a new one that fits in a framework of evolutionary biology - that threatening situations provoke anxiety as a means of motivating behavior which alleviates the threat.
Another good example is Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. The lower levels of the pyramid - food, shelter, and so on - are clearly priorities for humans, and same as you go up - social support and acceptance were certainly important for evolving homo sapiens.
Then you get to this gooey, mooshy "self-actualization" stuff...but what IS that? You can't just postulate these mystical drives that people have anymore; we have to get at the actual cognitive processes. Evolutionary psych helps get at these by looking at ways in which the "drive for self-actualization" could have developed. Now, nobody's denying that people do indeed seem to have a strong urge to make meaningful contributions, find contentment with themselves, find generativity, and so on - but squishing these all into the idea of "self-actualization" is a classic example of how psychology worked before we had such a good understanding of the brain. Instead of proposing these constructs, it would be better to break them down, find what is going on biologically or neurologically, and study where in evolutionary history these motivations might have come from.
Does this help?
Yeah no one has disputed that. The brain should not be equated with mind. The brain is a mass of squishy matter in your skull and the mind is the content of consciousness.
.....you know that the body/mind dichotomy is horrible antiquated?
Sure how it works physically.
Oh God....apparently you don't.
Well, hopefully SOMEBODY will read what I wrote above and learn from it.
Ok this would be where you actually demonstrate how it is explained away ego. I think it is pretty obvious that ego exists. The concept of "I" demonstrates that.
Like I said...nobody is saying the concept of the self doesn't exist. I was referring to the Freudian conception of the ego. See above where I discuss "self-actualization."
Yes, and the mind is the consequence of strictly physical processes. The new psychology (EP, behavioral genetics, neuroscience etc.) is based on that insight; that everything that happens in the mind correlates to things that happen in the physical univese, and can thus in theory be detected by studying that physical universe.
Exactly. We don't need to postulate vague ideas about "the mind" now that we are beginning to understand the physical processes that the mind comes from.
*snip about Freud and so on*
<3 <3 <3 <3
siva_chair
09-10-2008, 08:45 AM
The mind is what the brain does. Study the brain and you will learn about the mind.
Studying physical processes will not yeild insight into qualitative phenomenal experiences.
Yes, and the mind is the consequence of strictly physical processes. The new psychology (EP, behavioral genetics, neuroscience etc.) is based on that insight; that everything that happens in the mind correlates to things that happen in the physical univese, and can thus in theory be detected by studying that physical universe.
There are experiences that happen in the mind that do not correlate with things occuring within the physical universe, though. Take, for instance, hallucinations or altered states of awareness.
Freud's ego is not something that actually "exists", it's a model trying to explain an aspect of the mind. There's really two kinds of models you can use to understand the mind - the first is those of Freud and other old school psychologists; abstract models with concepts made up specifically for the purpose of explaining a certain aspect of the mind. The second model is the model of the universe that all other natural sciences use, using already existing concepts and facts about the universe, and this is the model that will render old school psychology obsolete. There's no point in using abstract models saying "the super-ego inhibits the id and blah blah" when you instead can say what actually happens on a physical level in the brain.
Ever hear of the "hard problems of consciousness?"
Ok if concepts of ego ect are outdated, what physical process creates and sustains the distinct idea of the self? What physical process creates and sustains the subjective nature of perceptive experience or point of view?
Yogert
09-10-2008, 09:20 AM
if everyone smoked fine moroccan hash all the time, we'd all be too stoned to fight
siva_chair
09-10-2008, 09:34 AM
OK
What does this have to do with being "divided within yourself"
Within the content of your consciousness.
I'm not introducing retarded ad hominem attacks so I'd go with "no"
Just thought I'd ask because you seem unable to understand basic English.
OK let me give an example of how evolutionary psych can abolish the use of nebulous concepts
I just read an article wherein the researchers were looking at something called "terror management theory." This claims that the anxiety caused by pondering death will lead people to affirm the meaning of their own lives; one way in which this manifests is that they will strengthen their belief in the idealogies of their in-group.
The problem I'd point out with this is that first of all, it has the classic view of anxiety as a problem to be overcome instead of an adaptation created by evolution to accomplish purposes. The research seeks to find a more sensible role for anxiety. Their hypothesis was that certain situations, in which it would be beneficial for a person to have the support of a social group, would lead people to strengthen their bonds with that group for the sake of getting themselves firmly into it.
The studies showed that people who contemplated various threats which could be protected from by being part of a strong supportive group, did indeed strengthen their support for the idealogies of their personal in-group and increase their distaste for views that were against their own.
The moral of the story? Researchers took a theory which rested on outdated ideas - that anxiety is an underlying monster that attacks people from their subconscious, driving them to banish it - and proposes a new one that fits in a framework of evolutionary biology - that threatening situations provoke anxiety as a means of motivating behavior which alleviates the threat.
That is a pretty Ad Hoc hypothesis.
Another good example is Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. The lower levels of the pyramid - food, shelter, and so on - are clearly priorities for humans, and same as you go up - social support and acceptance were certainly important for evolving homo sapiens.
Then you get to this gooey, mooshy "self-actualization" stuff...but what IS that? You can't just postulate these mystical drives that people have anymore; we have to get at the actual cognitive processes. Evolutionary psych helps get at these by looking at ways in which the "drive for self-actualization" could have developed. Now, nobody's denying that people do indeed seem to have a strong urge to make meaningful contributions, find contentment with themselves, find generativity, and so on - but squishing these all into the idea of "self-actualization" is a classic example of how psychology worked before we had such a good understanding of the brain. Instead of proposing these constructs, it would be better to break them down, find what is going on biologically or neurologically, and study where in evolutionary history these motivations might have come from.
Does this help?
Except EP relies on unprovable hypotheses. I think you are over-stating the consensus amongst scientists (or philosophers of science more specifically) over EP. Of course it is an attractive theory to people looking for a purely mechanistic, materialistic explanation on the mind, but it suffers from many many problems.
Relevant:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/
.....you know that the body/mind dichotomy is horrible antiquated?
That's nice but you still haven't shown how ideas and thoughts and experiences are actual physical manifestations. I will mention the "hard problems of consciousness" once again.
Oh God....apparently you don't.
Well, hopefully SOMEBODY will read what I wrote above and learn from it.
For ****'s sake get off of it. Quit acting like EP is some sort of universally accepted concept amongst behavioral psychologists.
Like I said...nobody is saying the concept of the self doesn't exist. I was referring to the Freudian conception of the ego. See above where I discuss "self-actualization."
I don't care what you think about the Freudian concept of the ego I already explained what I meant by ego several times. It is the cognitive representation of one's identity, the "me," ect.
Within the content of your consciousness.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN
Tell me precisely, what is it that is divided, what is it divided from, and what is the essence of this division? Tell me in concrete terms what you are talking about.
That is a pretty Ad Hoc hypothesis.
Uh as opposed to what
They're looking to investigate a specific question and so they do what do you expect
Except EP relies on unprovable hypotheses.
Evolution is unprovable, technically
I don't think anybody thinks its an unreasonable basis for scientific thought
I think you are over-stating the consensus amongst scientists (or philosophers of science more specifically) over EP. Of course it is an attractive theory to people looking for a purely mechanistic, materialistic explanation on the mind, but it suffers from many many problems.
OK the consensus doesn't really matter to what I'm saying
And any scientific theory suffers from problems but at least this one has some grounding in what we know about biology and are pretty damn sure about in evolutionary history
Anyway I'm not here to argue about whether evolutionary psychology is the future or not I'm just here to show how it can get rid of the outdated ideas of the past and I just did so
Relevant:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/
About to go to class will read later
That's nice but you still haven't shown how ideas and thoughts and experiences are actual physical manifestations.
They're not physical manifestations where the hell did that notion come from
I will mention the "hard problems of consciousness" once again.
What are they
For ****'s sake get off of it. Quit acting like EP is some sort of universally accepted concept amongst behavioral psychologists.
Every time I argue with you you put words in my mouth left and right
The fact that the mind-body dichotomy is horribly antiquated has nothing to do with EP
I don't care what you think about the Freudian concept of the ego I already explained what I meant by ego several times. It is the cognitive representation of one's identity, the "me," ect.
OK
I don't have a problem with that
siva_chair
09-10-2008, 11:36 AM
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN
Tell me precisely, what is it that is divided, what is it divided from, and what is the essence of this division? Tell me in concrete terms what you are talking about.
It means exactly what it says. The content of your consciousness. That which makes up your conscious experience i.e. thoughts, ideas, prejudices, qualia, ect. What part of this description is so hard to understand?
Uh as opposed to what
They're looking to investigate a specific question and so they do what do you expect
There is no organization of the brain just happens to match the theoretical divisions of behavioral ecology (which Evolutionary Psychology derives it's domains from i.e. predator detection, toxin avoidance, mate selection, mating strategies, social exchange, ect.).
Take, for instance, an evolutionary hypothesis about some form of behaviour like crying. For example, a hypothesis may be that crying entered the human behavioral repertoire because there was a survival advantage in a mother being able to locate her child. There is no way to prove that this is the case. We can equally come up with an alternative hypothesis (crying keeps the mother awake and able to feed the child) or even a counter hypothesis (crying advertises the presence of the child and could attract a predator). We can say it is true that crying allows a mother to locate her child, but that does not mean that crying entered the behavioural repertoire on the basis of that benefit. Since any such conjecture can have an equal claim on being an evolutionary truth, there is no advantage (no explanatory or predictive value, which is very valuable to a psychologist) to be had from trying to frame the conjecture in evolutionary terms. Such explanations are essentially unfalsifiable in any meaningful way.
Evolution is unprovable, technically
I don't think anybody thinks its an unreasonable basis for scientific thought
What do you mean by unprovable?
A science is not simply just an applied version of the science that precedes it heirarchically.
OK the consensus doesn't really matter to what I'm saying
And any scientific theory suffers from problems but at least this one has some grounding in what we know about biology and are pretty damn sure about in evolutionary history
This doesn't invalidate other theories of mind.
And we aren't "pretty damn sure about in evolutionary history" either. See above crying example, for instance.
Evolutionary biology is one thing, because it relies on physical measurements that display themselves in a number of disciplines, but applying it to human behavior and thought is much trickier, as our recorded "evidence" that we can gain insight into said behavior and thought is very limited in scope (pretty much only going back to "written" history). Where as geology, the fossil record, biochemistry, ect all "record" evidence we can infer from for evolutionary biology, no such "record" really exists before the rise of human society and, specifically, writing that allows us that sort insight into the mental states and thought processes of early human beings.
Anyway I'm not here to argue about whether evolutionary psychology is the future or not I'm just here to show how it can get rid of the outdated ideas of the past and I just did so
And that had nothing to do what this thread was discussing anyway so I really don't know why you brought it up.
But I would hardly say that EP in any way conclusively dismisses these "outdate" ideas, anyway. Especially considering the controversy within the acedemic world surrounding it.
They're not physical manifestations where the hell did that notion come from
So "mind" is a fundamentally different "substance" than physical states i.e. I imagine a tree, but it isn't the same as the physical construct of tree. It doesn't occupy the same "space" as a tree does.
What are they
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Those are a few, anyway.
Every time I argue with you you put words in my mouth left and right
You are the one that keeps implying that it is some undisputable fact that explains consciousness, the content of consciousness, ect.
You said:
I haven't said anything that isn't commonly accepted knowledge (or should be) so there's nothing to really back up
The fact that the mind-body dichotomy is horribly antiquated has nothing to do with EP
Of course it does. EP is fundamentally a materialistic, reductionist viewpoint on the philosophy of mind, so the mind-body dichotomy is perfectly relevant to the discussion. The fact that it is an old idea doesn't preclude it from being accurate or correct.
OK
I don't have a problem with that
Then why in the hell do you keep bringing up EP as some sort of refutation to what was being discussed until this discussion turned into a cluster**** derailed topic?
I was talking about the ego and it's relation to the content of consciousness and how it is projected to the outside world. This was a discussion on human social unity, not some discussion on the mechanisms of the brain or how they came to be.
It means exactly what it says. The content of your consciousness. That which makes up your conscious experience i.e. thoughts, ideas, prejudices, qualia, ect. What part of this description is so hard to understand?
If youre going to be talking about reading comprehension maybe you missed this part of my post
Tell me precisely, what is it that is divided, what is it divided from, and what is the essence of this division? Tell me in concrete terms what you are talking about.
There is no organization of the brain just happens to match the theoretical divisions of behavioral ecology (which Evolutionary Psychology derives it's domains from i.e. predator detection, toxin avoidance, mate selection, mating strategies, social exchange, ect.).
Take, for instance, an evolutionary hypothesis about some form of behaviour like crying. For example, a hypothesis may be that crying entered the human behavioral repertoire because there was a survival advantage in a mother being able to locate her child. There is no way to prove that this is the case. We can equally come up with an alternative hypothesis (crying keeps the mother awake and able to feed the child) or even a counter hypothesis (crying advertises the presence of the child and could attract a predator). We can say it is true that crying allows a mother to locate her child, but that does not mean that crying entered the behavioural repertoire on the basis of that benefit. Since any such conjecture can have an equal claim on being an evolutionary truth, there is no advantage (no explanatory or predictive value, which is very valuable to a psychologist) to be had from trying to frame the conjecture in evolutionary terms. Such explanations are essentially unfalsifiable in any meaningful way.
A lot of things can be tested for example by looking at animals that also exhibit the behaviors
Obviously some of it is conjecture but it is conjecture based on facts that we do know as opposed to based on shimmering mirage-like philosophic ideas of the mind. And again, evolutionary is not supposed to be the only approach to psychology and it doesn't claim be able to answer every question. It can answer some, as with the methodology I talked about in that article, but it's just one aspect of an informed scientific approach. It's also not what I am here to post about
What do you mean by unprovable?
It can't be proven for certain but that doesn't mean the evidence is not overwhelming for it
This doesn't invalidate other theories of mind.
It does give us a more solid ground to work on than what psychology was based on earlier
Therefore it makes more sense to build theories of mind based on the newer, solider ground instead of maintaining ones based on the old, proverbial sandy ground
And we aren't "pretty damn sure about in evolutionary history" either. See above crying example, for instance.
Evolutionary biology is one thing, because it relies on physical measurements that display themselves in a number of disciplines, but applying it to human behavior and thought is much trickier, as our recorded "evidence" that we can gain insight into said behavior and thought is very limited in scope (pretty much only going back to "written" history). Where as geology, the fossil record, biochemistry, ect all "record" evidence we can infer from for evolutionary biology, no such "record" really exists before the rise of human society and, specifically, writing that allows us that sort insight into the mental states and thought processes of early human beings.
I already addressed all this I think
And that had nothing to do what this thread was discussing anyway so I really don't know why you brought it up.
The original point was that you were talking about people being divided within their own minds and I was asking what that means and you still haven't told me
But I would hardly say that EP in any way conclusively dismisses these "outdate" ideas, anyway. Especially considering the controversy within the acedemic world surrounding it.
Jeez dude
All I've said is that EP is one aspect of a new and informed scientific approach which does away with the need for older and more uninformed theories and constructs as in the Freudian ego example or the self-actualization for example or the anxiety as subconcious enemy example
it's not doing these things itself it's part of the thing that is replacing them
The ideas are outdated because of what we know
So "mind" is a fundamentally different "substance" than physical states i.e. I imagine a tree, but it isn't the same as the physical construct of tree. It doesn't occupy the same "space" as a tree does.
"Mind" is a construct but one that we all know for a fact exists in some way, because we all have one, all have a consciousness, etc.
"Self-actualization" on the other hand is vague and may well refer to a complex array of mental states which all have to do with feeling satisfied, generative, productive and so on; instead of referring to it as a monolithic entity we should be breaking it down into its component parts, studying them, trying to figure out where they come from and why they exist, and so on
This is what I'm talking about
Same with Freud's ego; instead of treating it in the classic Freudian sense we should be looking at what parts of the brain seem to be connected with self-awareness, testing as best we can for self-awareness in animals and doing all kinds of other experiments to get at what exactly the "self" is and what brain functions produce it and so on and so forth
Now if you're talking about people's minds "being divided within themselves" you need a working definition. You need to break that term down so it can be looked at as empirically as possible. Does it mean that certain parts of consciousness are inaccessible to others? That self-deception is taking place? That the mind houses conflicting desires? This is what I'm asking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
Those are a few, anyway.
This stuff is not what psychologists are concerned with generally...we can leave that stuff to the philosophers.
A biologist may be interested in these questions, but in their profession they are concerned with the fact that physical structures DO give rise to sensations and consciousness, and HOW, not WHY.
The existence of consciousness is one of the biggest mysteries but given that we know the connection is there, and a lot about how it works, I think the question of WHY can be left to the philosophers.
You are the one that keeps implying that it is some undisputable fact that explains consciousness, the content of consciousness, ect.
[quote]
Of course it does. EP is fundamentally a materialistic, reductionist viewpoint on the philosophy of mind, so the mind-body dichotomy is perfectly relevant to the discussion. The fact that it is an old idea doesn't preclude it from being accurate or correct.
Dude, the mind-body division is outdated because we now understand that the mind COMES from the body. The dichotomy dates from a time before people realized that.
Then why in the hell do you keep bringing up EP as some sort of refutation to what was being discussed until this discussion turned into a cluster**** derailed topic?
Because I was giving Freud's ego as an example of a concept that can be discarded in light of current discoveries
I was talking about the ego and it's relation to the content of consciousness and how it is projected to the outside world. This was a discussion on human social unity, not some discussion on the mechanisms of the brain or how they came to be.
OK
So how does this content of consciousness relate to social unity
sweboy
09-10-2008, 12:58 PM
Studying physical processes will not yeild insight into qualitative phenomenal experiences.
Ever hear of the "hard problems of consciousness?"
It is true that the experience of consciouness is inherently subjective (and thus not objectively measurable), but that is not really relevant to whether the new scientific approach to the human mind will be successful or not, and most importanly: it's not the aim of EP (or old school psychology either, for that matter) to solve the problem. Studying physical processes can determine what physical states of the brain correlate to certain qualia, and it would be possible to with 99.99% certainty describe the subjective experience of a person if you knew the exact state of the brain at a given moment, but because of the subjectivity of consciouness, you can by definition never be 100% certain or really even know how correct you are. But that's really a philosophical issue, not a psychological one. Practical science doesn't concern itself with if it's 100% certain or not, it's aim is to be able to predict and explain behaviour and objective approximations of subjective states of mind with as good certainty as possible.
Except EP relies on unprovable hypotheses. I think you are over-stating the consensus amongst scientists (or philosophers of science more specifically) over EP. Of course it is an attractive theory to people looking for a purely mechanistic, materialistic explanation on the mind, but it suffers from many many problems.
What do you mean unprovable hypotheses? Essentially, EP relies on the hypothesis that the human mind/brain evolved trough darwinian evolution, and that all aspects of human mind and behaviour are adaptions or side-effects of adaptions - and this is a fact derived from the theory of evolution. (This fact alone however does not really predict anything about the human mind, but it is the fact that EP is based on.)
EDIT: Ok I just got what you mean, my answer is below:
Take, for instance, an evolutionary hypothesis about some form of behaviour like crying. For example, a hypothesis may be that crying entered the human behavioral repertoire because there was a survival advantage in a mother being able to locate her child. There is no way to prove that this is the case. We can equally come up with an alternative hypothesis (crying keeps the mother awake and able to feed the child) or even a counter hypothesis (crying advertises the presence of the child and could attract a predator). We can say it is true that crying allows a mother to locate her child, but that does not mean that crying entered the behavioural repertoire on the basis of that benefit. Since any such conjecture can have an equal claim on being an evolutionary truth, there is no advantage (no explanatory or predictive value, which is very valuable to a psychologist) to be had from trying to frame the conjecture in evolutionary terms. Such explanations are essentially unfalsifiable in any meaningful way.
The point of EP is not to derive scientific data from evolutionary theory, but to derive scientific hypotheses from evolutionary theory - these hypotheses must then of course go trough empirical tests to be considered true. And you're missing that selection pressure on a particular behaviour comes from many directions - both two of your first hypotheses could subject crying to positive selection, and your third hypothesis subject it to negative selection. I also think you're underestimating our ability to draw conclusions about why behaviours evolve and the strength of selection pressures - you don't just sit at home thinking "hmm crying could bring attention to the mother", you study the chemical/biological/neurological effects/causes of crying on human and other animal mothers/infants, you study the prevalence and characteristics of crying/related behaviours in wild animals and use mathematical models to calculate the fitness of different behaviours, you use methods of behavioral genetics (i.e twin studies, cultural comparisons) to study the genetic basis for crying (genetic data gives us a direct view into our evolutionary history), you compare genetic, behavioral and molecular biological data with other animals, you go to neurogenetics to study how the genes build the brain, you study humans with various mental disorders etc. etc. You say that "any such conjecture can have an equal claim on being an evolutionary truth", but this is incorrect.
Evolutionary biology is one thing, because it relies on physical measurements that display themselves in a number of disciplines, but applying it to human behavior and thought is much trickier, as our recorded "evidence" that we can gain insight into said behavior and thought is very limited in scope (pretty much only going back to "written" history). Where as geology, the fossil record, biochemistry, ect all "record" evidence we can infer from for evolutionary biology, no such "record" really exists before the rise of human society and, specifically, writing that allows us that sort insight into the mental states and thought processes of early human beings.
It is trickier but not impossible (see above for some of the methods). But the thing about EP is that it, unlike any old school branch of psychology, provides a way to see why human nature is like it is, and that it combined with the other fields of the new science of human nature, can correlate human states of mind with the physical world (brain activity), as opposed to old school psychology which correlates human states of minds with arbitrary abstract models.
i didn't know you guys were working on a novel
mph4ever
09-10-2008, 02:22 PM
this could be a record for the longest single page of post
Damn Sweboy is awesome
I wish it was Swegirl :( :( I would fly to Sweland to hit that
sweboy
09-10-2008, 05:27 PM
damn your evolutionary history which makes you like girls and not boys ):
Give everyone really big TVs. Then they won't want them to get blown up and no one would steal them because that would be pointless.
Iscariot
09-10-2008, 06:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkJ-8u3X-o
Iscariot
09-10-2008, 06:16 PM
that's what it would take for humanity to unite
Smokey D
09-11-2008, 12:09 AM
What constitutes "me" and "you," all the images, the memory, ect. is the content of consciousness. There is a clear division between "me" and "not me" and that division is within the content of consciousness.
Sort of. The concepts of you and me and this and that etc are separate in my mind, but they are only constituent parts of a gestalt phenomenology of experience. Saying consciousness is divided implies, at least to me, that consciousness is self-opposed. I don't see that at all. We define (and divide) things in order to make sense of the singular phenomenon of our experience. I don't think it's very informative to say definition renders the consciousness divided, because that is the point and is in effect only half the story.
Not at all. The ego is the "me" The collection of "my desires," "my thoughts," ect. It is the center. This center of experience and sensation.
Ego is a word intimately connected with Freudian psychology with a far more technical definition then just 'the centre of me', so it's confusing when you use it in a loose non-Freudian sense especially when you affirm that 'this is not Freudian bullpoop'.
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 01:25 AM
If youre going to be talking about reading comprehension maybe you missed this part of my post
Well if you would read the thread you would see that I have already explained it earlier.
But, here it is in summary once again:
what is it that is divided: The content of consciousness.
what is it divided from: Thought. Thought creates this thing called the thinker. It divides itself saying that the thinker is seperate from the thought, but the thinker IS thought. The thinker defines itself with thought and says "hey these things are seperate" when really it is all one process.
what is the essence of this division: The critical assumption that thought and knowledge aren't participating in our sense of reality, but only reporting on it.
A lot of things can be tested for example by looking at animals that also exhibit the behaviors
How can you test for the evolutionary precedence of particular behaviors?
Obviously some of it is conjecture but it is conjecture based on facts that we do know as opposed to based on shimmering mirage-like philosophic ideas of the mind.
What are these "facts that we do know" that you keep talking about exactly? Like I said I could just as easily present other hypotheses that fit "what we do know" every bit as much as EP does, but that doesn't mean it is useful for prediction and measurement purposes.
And again, evolutionary is not supposed to be the only approach to psychology and it doesn't claim be able to answer every question. It can answer some, as with the methodology I talked about in that article, but it's just one aspect of an informed scientific approach. It's also not what I am here to post about
Then why the hell did you even bring it up?
It can't be proven for certain but that doesn't mean the evidence is not overwhelming for it
Except the evidence isn't "overwhelmingly for it." Just because evolutionary biology has tons of evidence doesn't mean that EP gets to piggyback on it's success.
Like I said, a science is not simply just an applied version of the science that precedes it heirarchically. At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalizations are necessary. Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry.
It does give us a more solid ground to work on than what psychology was based on earlier
Therefore it makes more sense to build theories of mind based on the newer, solider ground instead of maintaining ones based on the old, proverbial sandy ground
I already said I don't care about older theories of mind so I don't know why you even brought up that argument. Everything I have said can be observed within your own mind.
I already addressed all this I think
Where?
The original point was that you were talking about people being divided within their own minds and I was asking what that means and you still haven't told me
I've said it several times in this thread. You shouldn't equate your inability to understand with me not explaining it.
All of thought's components interpenetrate one another to such an extent that we should be viewing "thought as a system"- It is concrete as well as abstract, active as well as passive, and collective as well as individual.
Jeez dude
All I've said is that EP is one aspect of a new and informed scientific approach which does away with the need for older and more uninformed theories and constructs as in the Freudian ego example or the self-actualization for example or the anxiety as subconcious enemy example
it's not doing these things itself it's part of the thing that is replacing them
The ideas are outdated because of what we know
Jeez dude
What the hell does that have to do with what was originally being discussed about the unity of humans? It doesn't really matter if you prefer one idea or model of the mind over another to me. What I am talking about is the functioning of and behavior of thought AS IS, as you can observe it in your own life, your own society, and so on and so forth. I'm not concerned with where this behavior came from, but with it's implications on the self and on society.
"Mind" is a construct but one that we all know for a fact exists in some way, because we all have one, all have a consciousness, etc.
"Self-actualization" on the other hand is vague.......and so on
This form of reductionism is very misleading if you ask me. The inappropriate use of reductionism limits our understanding of complex systems. The whole is more than the sum of it's parts.
This is what I'm talking about
Same with Freud's ego; instead of treating it in the classic Freudian sense we should be looking at what parts of the brain.....to get at what exactly the "self" is and what brain functions produce it and so on and so forth
Locating the "location" of the self in the brain will not allow us to understand the self as it is and what it's relationship is with other "selfs." Say we conclude that the "self" arises in the pineal gland or something like that. This isn't going to tell us anything about why humans commit violence between one another, or why we divide ourselves up into groups, nationalities, religions, ect.
Now if you're talking about people's minds "being divided within themselves" you need a working definition........ This is what I'm asking for.
I have given you a working definition several times. There are only so many different ways to describe it.
This stuff is not what psychologists are concerned with generally...we can leave that stuff to the philosophers.
They should be, because consciousness underlies everything they do, so explaining it and understanding it is very important.
A biologist may be interested in these questions, but in their profession they are concerned with the fact that physical structures DO give rise to sensations and consciousness, and HOW, not WHY.
They have to explain how unintelligent, unconscious matter produces conscious, thinking, sensory matter. There is an explanation gap.
The existence of consciousness is one of the biggest mysteries but given that we know the connection is there, and a lot about how it works, I think the question of WHY can be left to the philosophers.
We assume that matter precedes consciousness, we do not know.
Dude, the mind-body division is outdated because we now understand that the mind COMES from the body. The dichotomy dates from a time before people realized that.
See above. We cannot empirically measure consciousness, so there is no real way for us to prove that matter gives rise to consciousness.
Because I was giving Freud's ego as an example of a concept that can be discarded in light of current discoveries
And what the hell does that have to do what was being discussed.
Spontaneous generation is an example of a concept that can be discarded in light of more recent discoveries too, but that doesn't mean it is at all relevant with what was being discussed.
So how does this content of consciousness relate to social unity
It IS society. You can see it on a person-to-person scale, as well as a global scale.
For example: Flattery is a pleasing experience which usually sets up a reflex of receptivity toward the one who flatters. If Sue fails to flatter Mike when he expects her to, or takes advantage of him in some unpleasant way, Mike will attribute his subsequent bad feelings to something Sue did. He fails to see that he participated in constructing the reflex that produced not only the good feelings, but the bad ones as well. A similar process of incoherence is at work in the nation-state. For example when the US attributes diabolical characteristics to various Middle Eastern countries that thwart it's easy access to oil, it is not taking into account it's central involvement in an international petroleum-based economy which naturally gives an inordinate power to those who possess crude. In this case, the reflexive response may be war.
The feature common to both examples is the sense of being in control with an independent response: "I will get even with her" or "We must demonstrate where the real power lies." The real power is in the activity of thought. While independence and choice appear to be inherent in our actions, we are actually being driven by agendas which act faster than, and independent of, our conscious choice. Thought struggles against it's own creations. This is the root of all conflict, be it internally, or externally.
Iscariot
09-11-2008, 01:27 AM
we need a yawning smiley for posts like these
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 01:46 AM
It is true that the experience of consciouness is inherently subjective (and thus not objectively measurable), but that is not really relevant to whether the new scientific approach to the human mind will be successful or not, and most importanly: it's not the aim of EP (or old school psychology either, for that matter) to solve the problem. Studying physical processes can determine what physical states of the brain correlate to certain qualia, and it would be possible to with 99.99% certainty describe the subjective experience of a person if you knew the exact state of the brain at a given moment, but because of the subjectivity of consciouness, you can by definition never be 100% certain or really even know how correct you are. But that's really a philosophical issue, not a psychological one. Practical science doesn't concern itself with if it's 100% certain or not, it's aim is to be able to predict and explain behaviour and objective approximations of subjective states of mind with as good certainty as possible.
What do you mean unprovable hypotheses? Essentially, EP relies on the hypothesis that the human mind/brain evolved trough darwinian evolution, and that all aspects of human mind and behaviour are adaptions or side-effects of adaptions - and this is a fact derived from the theory of evolution. (This fact alone however does not really predict anything about the human mind, but it is the fact that EP is based on.)
EDIT: Ok I just got what you mean, my answer is below:
The point of EP is not to derive scientific data from evolutionary theory, but to derive scientific hypotheses from evolutionary theory - these hypotheses must then of course go trough empirical tests to be considered true. And you're missing that selection pressure on a particular behaviour comes from many directions - both two of your first hypotheses could subject crying to positive selection, and your third hypothesis subject it to negative selection. I also think you're underestimating our ability to draw conclusions about why behaviours evolve and the strength of selection pressures - you don't just sit at home thinking "hmm crying could bring attention to the mother", you study the chemical/biological/neurological effects/causes of crying on human and other animal mothers/infants, you study the prevalence and characteristics of crying/related behaviours in wild animals and use mathematical models to calculate the fitness of different behaviours, you use methods of behavioral genetics (i.e twin studies, cultural comparisons) to study the genetic basis for crying (genetic data gives us a direct view into our evolutionary history), you compare genetic, behavioral and molecular biological data with other animals, you go to neurogenetics to study how the genes build the brain, you study humans with various mental disorders etc. etc. You say that "any such conjecture can have an equal claim on being an evolutionary truth", but this is incorrect.
EP basically implies that psychology is applied biology. I outlined above in the post to Jude why this isn't the case. Psychology isn't applied biology any more than biology is applied chemistry. At each stage new laws, concepts, and generalizations are needed.
This is just one of the reasons for the number of it's critics.
It is trickier but not impossible (see above for some of the methods). But the thing about EP is that it, unlike any old school branch of psychology, provides a way to see why human nature is like it is, and that it combined with the other fields of the new science of human nature, can correlate human states of mind with the physical world (brain activity), as opposed to old school psychology which correlates human states of minds with arbitrary abstract models.
It dealt with abstract models because it was explaining a conceptual world.
Anyways, the thread wasn't about the pros/cons of EP as a theory, it was concerning social relations between human beings and how humans could be united.
Sort of. The concepts of you and me and this and that etc are separate in my mind, but they are only constituent parts of a gestalt phenomenology of experience. Saying consciousness is divided implies, at least to me, that consciousness is self-opposed. I don't see that at all. We define (and divide) things in order to make sense of the singular phenomenon of our experience. I don't think it's very informative to say definition renders the consciousness divided, because that is the point and is in effect only half the story.
It is "self-opposed" (if you wish to use that term) in the sense that the content of our consciousness (thought) creates problems and struggles against the results. This is due fundamentally to the divisions created by thought.
A better way would be to say that the consciousness is fragmented. Divided implies that the consciousness is divided into two conflicting entities, which isn't what I was saying. Thought creates divisions, which contribute to the overall fragmentation of consciousness.
Ego is a word intimately connected with Freudian psychology with a far more technical definition then just 'the centre of me', so it's confusing when you use it in a loose non-Freudian sense especially when you affirm that 'this is not Freudian bullpoop'.
I already described what I meant and implied by ego. I use the term so I don't have to type out a huge long description of the center of sensation and experience, the self.
The term is no longer simply confined to strict Freudian psychology.
Smokey D
09-11-2008, 01:55 AM
It is "self-opposed" (if you wish to use that term) in the sense that the content of our consciousness (thought) creates problems and struggles against the results. This is due fundamentally to the divisions created by thought.
I don't see it as struggling against itself. I see it as making sense of an otherwise impossibly complicated reality.
A better way would be to say that the consciousness is fragmented. Divided implies that the consciousness is divided into two conflicting entities, which isn't what I was saying. Thought creates divisions, which contribute to the overall fragmentation of consciousness.
I don't think it's fragmented. It's describing a unified substance, but using differences to do so.
I already described what I meant and implied by ego. I use the term so I don't have to type out a huge long description of the center of sensation and experience, the self.
The term is no longer simply confined to strict Freudian psychology.
Just saying that anyone who is even remotely aware of Freud is going to get confused as hell by the term ego. I dunno, talk about the self or something. The ego is a loaded term.
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 02:24 AM
I don't see it as struggling against itself. I see it as making sense of an otherwise impossibly complicated reality.
That is based on the assumption that thought is just relaying what is happening and not actually contributing to what is going on.
I don't think it's fragmented. It's describing a unified substance, but using differences to do so.
It is fragmented because it is dividing things up where divisions aren't necessary. It is the past, carried forward into the present. It is the instantaneous display of memory, a superimposition of images onto the active, living present.
On the one hand this memory is what allows of to preform the most simplest of tasks, like driving to the store or getting dressed in the morning. On the other hand, memory is also responsible for various aspects of fear, anxiety, ect. and the actions that proceed from those memories.
Just saying that anyone who is even remotely aware of Freud is going to get confused as hell by the term ego. I dunno, talk about the self or something. The ego is a loaded term.
You shouldn't if you bothered to read the context in which I had been using the word. :thumb:
Consciousness doesn't struggle against itself dude
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 08:21 AM
Consciousness doesn't struggle against itself dude
Of course it does dude.
Also, I said thought. You might want to frame your responses in a relevant manner. Dude.
Of course it does dude.
OK explain how right now
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 09:57 AM
OK explain how right now
It is fragmented because it is dividing things up where divisions aren't necessary. It is the past, carried forward into the present. It is the instantaneous display of memory, a superimposition of images onto the active, living present.
On the one hand this memory is what allows of to preform the most simplest of tasks, like driving to the store or getting dressed in the morning. On the other hand, memory is also responsible for various aspects of fear, anxiety, ect. and the actions that proceed from those memories.
For example: Flattery is a pleasing experience which usually sets up a reflex of receptivity toward the one who flatters. If Sue fails to flatter Mike when he expects her to, or takes advantage of him in some unpleasant way, Mike will attribute his subsequent bad feelings to something Sue did. He fails to see that he participated in constructing the reflex that produced not only the good feelings, but the bad ones as well. A similar process of incoherence is at work in the nation-state. For example when the US attributes diabolical characteristics to various Middle Eastern countries that thwart it's easy access to oil, it is not taking into account it's central involvement in an international petroleum-based economy which naturally gives an inordinate power to those who possess crude. In this case, the reflexive response may be war.
The feature common to both examples is the sense of being in control with an independent response: "I will get even with her" or "We must demonstrate where the real power lies." The real power is in the activity of thought. While independence and choice appear to be inherent in our actions, we are actually being driven by agendas which act faster than, and independent of, our conscious choice. Thought struggles against it's own creations. This is the root of all conflict, be it internally, or externally.
What constitutes "me" and "you," all the images, the memory, ect. is the content of consciousness, produced by thought. There is a clear division between "me" and "not me" and that division is within the content of consciousness.
Or if you need someone else to say it:
...the general tacit assumption in thought is that it's just telling you the way things are and that it's not doing anything - that 'you' are inside there, deciding what to do with the info. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. This is another major feature of thought: Thought doesn't know it is doing something and then it struggles against what it is doing. It doesn't want to know that it is doing it. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call "sustained incoherence".
None of those things really have to do with consciousness "struggling against itself"
you're still going with the Freudian ideas even if you don't know it; we know now that the subconscious is not a demon that is fighting to hinder you but just another useful brain function which happens to be out of sight of the conscious mind most of the time
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 10:07 AM
None of those things really have to do with consciousness "struggling against itself"
Well if you could read you'd see I said thought is struggling against itself. The content of consciousness is struggling against itself.
you're still going with the Freudian ideas even if you don't know it; we know now that the subconscious is not a demon that is fighting to hinder you but just another useful brain function which happens to be out of sight of the conscious mind most of the time
Where did I ever mention anything about the unconsciousness?
Quit arguing strawmen.
Well if you could read you'd see I said thought is struggling against itself. The content of consciousness is struggling against itself.
NO IT IS NOT
The only way I can think that this would be legitimate is if someone has a hard decision to make and is truly divided on the issue
Cognitive dissonance does not constitute a war between two parts of your mind; it's a natural result of inconsistent beliefs and views
Where did I ever mention anything about the unconsciousness?
Quit arguing strawmen.
A bunch of the stuff you talked about are things that are results of unconscious processes
StreetlightRock
09-11-2008, 10:16 AM
This whole 'divided consciousness' debate is wearing a little thin here. Its a pretty simple idea, and, correct me if I'm wrong Siva, but you're essentially saying:
Identity is created by a dichotomy of reality, that is, my identity is based on not just (1) What I am, but (2), What I am not.. Again, coming back to the idea that 'I am me because I am not you'. However, this process of identity creation necessarily involves choice. I choose to identify myself by X, Y and Z, and choose not to identify myself by A, B and C. Thus, by choosing my identity, I consciously divide the world 'within myself'. This choice is psychological, not material.
Is that about right? Sorry, I felt like I had to interject because this was running in circles.
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 10:31 AM
NO IT IS NOT
The only way I can think that this would be legitimate is if someone has a hard decision to make and is truly divided on the issue
Cognitive dissonance does not constitute a war between two parts of your mind; it's a natural result of inconsistent beliefs and views
Yes stamp your feet and cry that I am wrong instead of demonstrating where what I have said is incorrect. That makes an awesome case.
A bunch of the stuff you talked about are things that are results of unconscious processes
I suppose it is unconscious in the fact that the mind isn't always aware of it, but it can very easily be made aware of it if it observes it as it is happening. I don't expect you to understand this though so keep trying to talk about Freud and whatnot.
This whole 'divided consciousness' debate is wearing a little thin here. Its a pretty simple idea, and, correct me if I'm wrong Siva, but you're essentially saying:
Identity is created by a dichotomy of reality, that is, my identity is based on not just (1) What I am, but (2), What I am not.. Again, coming back to the idea that 'I am me because I am not you'. However, this process of identity creation necessarily involves choice. I choose to identify myself by X, Y and Z, and choose not to identify myself by A, B and C. Thus, by choosing my identity, I consciously divide the world 'within myself'. This choice is psychological, not material.
Is that about right? Sorry, I felt like I had to interject because this was running in circles.
Yes, I'd say that is pretty accurate for the most part.
It is basically, as Bohm put it, thought is creating these divisions and telling itself they are there naturally (i.e. not constructs of thought) and struggles against those results.
I'd also re-emphasize my earlier example:
For example: Flattery is a pleasing experience which usually sets up a reflex of receptivity toward the one who flatters. If Sue fails to flatter Mike when he expects her to, or takes advantage of him in some unpleasant way, Mike will attribute his subsequent bad feelings to something Sue did. He fails to see that he participated in constructing the reflex that produced not only the good feelings, but the bad ones as well. A similar process of incoherence is at work in the nation-state. For example when the US attributes diabolical characteristics to various Middle Eastern countries that thwart it's easy access to oil, it is not taking into account it's central involvement in an international petroleum-based economy which naturally gives an inordinate power to those who possess crude. In this case, the reflexive response may be war.
The feature common to both examples is the sense of being in control with an independent response: "I will get even with her" or "We must demonstrate where the real power lies." The real power is in the activity of thought. While independence and choice appear to be inherent in our actions, we are actually being driven by agendas which act faster than, and independent of, our conscious choice. Thought struggles against it's own creations. This is the root of all conflict, be it internally, or externally.
It is the structure and process of thought that is struggling against itself. One can observe this process in their own mind, as well as the projection of this process on our relationships both individually and collectively as a society.
Yes stamp your feet and cry that I am wrong instead of demonstrating where what I have said is incorrect. That makes an awesome case.
I actually did demonstrate but anyway it appears we are arguing about terminology
The phrase "consciousness struggling against itself" maybe refers to the same thing as unconscious processes, poor insight, and cognitive dissonance, which are the things you're referring to, but it (the terminology) also stinks of Freudian nonsense which is why it's going to get a reaction from anybody who knows something about psychology
I suppose it is unconscious in the fact that the mind isn't always aware of it, but it can very easily be made aware of it if it observes it as it is happening.
That's exactly what unconscious processes are
It is the structure and process of thought that is struggling against itself. One can observe this process in their own mind, as well as the projection of this process on our relationships both individually and collectively as a society.
Once again, nothing is "struggling" the mind just operates in such a way that it misses a lot of things, especially when there is a worldview or view of oneself to hold up, and without careful examination these things can be screened out
It's not as if two aspects of consciousness are dueling for supremacy though
StreetlightRock
09-11-2008, 10:35 AM
Yes, I'd say that is pretty accurate for the most part.
Cool, just wanted to clear it up.
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 10:52 AM
I actually did demonstrate but anyway it appears we are arguing about terminology
The phrase "consciousness struggling against itself" maybe refers to the same thing as unconscious processes, poor insight, and cognitive dissonance, which are the things you're referring to, but it (the terminology) also stinks of Freudian nonsense which is why it's going to get a reaction from anybody who knows something about psychology
You are the only one really using the term "consciousness struggling against itself."
I have explicitely clarified what I was talking about when I mentioned thought struggling against itself but you seem to conveniently ignore that and jump right back in here nitpicking with the phrase "consciousness struggling against itself."
You seem to be the only one stuck on Freud's nutsack and terminology here.
That's exactly what unconscious processes are
It isn't inherently an unconscious process, though. The mind can observe and become fully aware of it if it gives attentive perception to this overall process of thought instead of focusing solely on the content of thought.
Once again, nothing is "struggling" the mind just operates in such a way that it misses a lot of things, especially when there is a worldview or view of oneself to hold up, and without careful examination these things can be screened out[QUOTE]
It is struggling against it's own results. It doesn't know it is doing something (creating divisions out of itself) and then struggles against what it's unpleasant results all the while keeping on with that way of thinking.
[QUOTE]It's not as if two aspects of consciousness are dueling for supremacy though
For ****'s sake you are the only one that has been saying that. Get off of it already.
Cool, just wanted to clear it up.
:thumb:
Makes sense to you, doesn't it?
You are the only one really using the term "consciousness struggling against itself."
OK change it to thought whatever
It is struggling against it's own results. It doesn't know it is doing something (creating divisions out of itself) and then struggles against what it's unpleasant results all the while keeping on with that way of thinking.
Well if you want to put it that way I guess it doesn't really matter but I don't think most psychologists would agree with the terminology
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 11:07 AM
OK change it to thought whatever
Yeah I did many many posts ago. Either you epicfail at reading, or you intentionally kept using the term in some sort of strange attempt to invalidate what I had been saying idk.
Well if you want to put it that way I guess it doesn't really matter but I don't think most psychologists would agree with the terminology
I HAVE been putting it that way for the past many many posts.
And 1) I don't see what terminology they would inherently disagree with and 2) nor do I really care if they disagree with it because my point still stands.
Yeah I did many many posts ago. Either you epicfail at reading, or you intentionally kept using the term in some sort of strange attempt to invalidate what I had been saying idk.
It really doesn't change the meaning incidentally
I HAVE been putting it that way for the past many many posts.
And 1) I don't see what terminology they would inherently disagree with and 2) nor do I really care if they disagree with it because my point still stands.
They would reject the terminology because it sounds like Freudian-based, bullshit, pop psychology and misleads the listener as to what it's about
siva_chair
09-11-2008, 11:05 PM
It really doesn't change the meaning incidentally
They would reject the terminology because it sounds like Freudian-based, bullpoop, pop psychology and misleads the listener as to what it's about
Ok, give me a realistic, real-world example of a human relation and interaction where what I have said doesn't hold.
Ok, give me a realistic, real-world example of a human relation and interaction where what I have said doesn't hold.
Uh you might have missed the part where I said everything you are saying is all right except the terminology
siva_chair
09-12-2008, 12:38 AM
Uh you might have missed the part where I said everything you are saying is all right except the terminology
What terminology is being used incorrectly? What I said displays the point just fine.
The terminology we've been arguing about for however many pages
siva_chair
09-12-2008, 12:51 AM
The terminology we've been arguing about for however many pages
Oh you mean the terminology you keep bringing up over and over again despite the fact that I clarified it multiple times and you still insisted on using? I see.
Smokey D
09-13-2008, 01:42 AM
That is based on the assumption that thought is just relaying what is happening and not actually contributing to what is going on.
No it's not.
In fact that's not remotely relevant.
It is fragmented because it is dividing things up where divisions aren't necessary. It is the past, carried forward into the present. It is the instantaneous display of memory, a superimposition of images onto the active, living present.
It divides things, so to speak, because things are different. Even if they are part of a unified whole, they are still different parts.
On the one hand this memory is what allows of to preform the most simplest of tasks, like driving to the store or getting dressed in the morning. On the other hand, memory is also responsible for various aspects of fear, anxiety, ect. and the actions that proceed from those memories.
Yah and?
You shouldn't if you bothered to read the context in which I had been using the word. :thumb:
I'm bothered for the same reasons as Jude, and moreso because there are so many alternatives you could use.
siva_chair
09-13-2008, 03:17 AM
No it's not.
In fact that's not remotely relevant.
Of course it is. Thought says it is just telling the "you" that it is just relaying what is happening and not in fact directly influencing what is happening.
It is relevant because that fundemental assumption is the root of the problems we are discussing.
It divides things, so to speak, because things are different. Even if they are part of a unified whole, they are still different parts.
That is still based on the assumption that thought isn't contributing to said differences, that it is in fact just objectively relaying what is being done and the reflective response to what is being done are independent of the thought that formed them.
Yah and?
Yeah and that is the root of what keeps humanity from being united. In other words, the original topic of this whole thread.
I'm bothered for the same reasons as Jude, and moreso because there are so many alternatives you could use.
The only reason this is still an issue is because you keep bringing it up. I don't believe I ever used the term "ego" and what have you without applying it to the context it has been used in. You seem to be focusing on the word and all the assumtions YOU have associated with it's meaning instead of the actual context it has been used in. I have not used the word in any context that would inherently suggest a Freudian interpretation of it.
Smokey D
09-13-2008, 03:27 AM
Of course it is. Thought says it is just telling the "you" that it is just relaying what is happening and not in fact directly influencing what is happening.
But as you've shown it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that thought and matter affect one another.
It is relevant because that fundemental assumption is the root of the problems we are discussing.
I don't see it as a fundamental assumption. In fact, I don't believe in it at all. But I still disagree with your argument.
That is still based on the assumption that thought isn't contributing to said differences, that it is in fact just objectively relaying what is being done and the reflective response to what is being done are independent of the thought that formed them.
No, it really has nothing to do with that. I can distinguish between two objects and still understand that thought and matter are related (in fact they are the basically the same thing, as all thought emerges from matter).
Yeah and that is the root of what keeps humanity from being united. In other words, the original topic of this whole thread.
What the hell does that have to do with remembering how to tie my shoes and memory causing anxiety.
You've got to improve your logical connections.
The only reason this is still an issue is because you keep bringing it up. I don't believe I ever used the term "ego" and what have you without applying it to the context it has been used in. You seem to be focusing on the word and all the assumtions YOU have associated with it's meaning instead of the actual context it has been used in. I have not used the word in any context that would inherently suggest a Freudian interpretation of it.
Using the term ego creates a Freudian context and you didn't qualify it until we were part way through the discussion and then it was just confusing.
siva_chair
09-13-2008, 04:13 AM
But as you've shown it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that thought and matter affect one another.
Of course it does. What is there a "but" about?
I don't see it as a fundamental assumption. In fact, I don't believe in it at all. But I still disagree with your argument.
Ok, provide me a real world situation where my argument does not hold true.
No, it really has nothing to do with that. I can distinguish between two objects and still understand that thought and matter are related (in fact they are the basically the same thing, as all thought emerges from matter).
What are you talking about it has everything to do with that. Sure, you can distinguish between two objects, no one ever disputed that.
And also I don't know if it is fair to assume that thought emerges from matter, as one could easily say that matter emerges from thought. Either way I hold neither, as I believe both are merely abstractions from a deeper order. Neither emerged from either one.
What the hell does that have to do with remembering how to tie my shoes and memory causing anxiety.
It is all part of the same process. That which allows us to remember how to tie our shoes is also the same process that divides us. We would like to divide it up so that we may think it is fundamentally different, but it isn't. It is all part of the same process, and that process produces results that it conflicts against.
You've got to improve your logical connections.
I could say, you have to improve your contextual comprehension abilities.
Using the term ego creates a Freudian context and you didn't qualify it until we were part way through the discussion and then it was just confusing.
These are the divisions I was speaking of. It is within the psychology of man that he makes these divisions. The 'me', the ego, the self, which divides itself as the 'me' and the 'not me', the 'me' that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community, with this group or not with that group, and so on and so forth.
This is the first time I ever used the term ego in this thread. As you can see, I placed it within a completely relevant context and qualified it the very first time I used it. Any confusion was the result of you taking it out of context and applying predisposed assumptions about what the word is supposed to mean.
Same with the term "consciousness is divided from itself." I don't believe I ever even used that term, yet it has been brought up as a criticism against what I said several times now.
Shadius
09-13-2008, 05:11 AM
It is the structure and process of thought that is struggling against itself.
A thought.. struggling against.. itself. Sounds like poetry not Psychological theory to me.
Your ideas seem to be good for the mostpart, but like Jude has pointed out, you're using terminology that's wrong.
What Psychologys seem to think happens is rather cognitive dissonance which is two or more belief or value systems that oppose each other or have values which are in direct conflict. "I'm not racist BUT" "I'm not scared of the dark BUT". For the most part perfectly natural, but in extreme cases can cause you to be more hostile because they are essentially unconscious processes and this strain (dissonance) to work out how you feel/want to act casue this heightened emotion.
All comes from magical thinking as a child when we don't udnerstand how the world really works, and how the mind incorporates old theories of how the world works with new theories, and even science in more educated minds which can go directly against our own senses.
So how does this relate to humanity not getting along? Well...
If we're going to apply Psychology to this discussion I suggest that modern contact theory can probably hold most of the answers to everyone getting along better.
siva_chair
09-13-2008, 05:24 AM
A thought.. struggling against.. itself. Sounds like poetry not Psychological theory to me.
Your ideas seem to be good for the mostpart, but like Jude has pointed out, you're using terminology that's wrong.
What terminology am I using that is so wrong?!?!
So far people keep saying this but they don't actually point out specifically what it is that I have said that is actually incorrect terminology.
Shadius
09-13-2008, 05:31 AM
What terminology am I using that is so wrong?!?!
So far people keep saying this but they don't actually point out specifically what it is that I have said that is actually incorrect terminology.
Thought process struggling against itself isn't correct, it's two or more thought processes (or belief systems) that are in direct or partial conflict, the conflict of these processes and how they interact to form an outcome and the stress this causes on the autonomic nervous system (in extreme cases). I'm ignoring all this stuff about Freud and whatnot, people were undoubtedly using incorrect terminology, but who cares, none of this is important, it's just semantics really.
so, contact theory. does being encouraged to spend time with people from different cultures in equal status situations break down racial stereotypes and foster understanding and combat racism? if not how else can we stop the racism
StreetlightRock
09-13-2008, 05:40 AM
so, contact theory. does being encouraged to spend time with people from different cultures in equal status situations break down racial stereotypes and foster understanding and combat racism?
I don't think simply plopping someone down in another culture is enough to break down stereotypes - It can probably reinforce them as well. Its probably an important step, but the intent of someone in contact with another culture probably matters in defining the outcome of that contact. If I'm a raging racist, all I'm going to see if you put me in the middle of a Black Ghetto say, is everything negative i'll be looking for in the first place.
siva_chair
09-13-2008, 05:43 AM
Thought process struggling against itself isn't correct, it's two or more thought processes (or belief systems) that are in direct or partial conflict, the conflict of these processes and how they interact to form an outcome and the stress this causes on the autonomic nervous system (in extreme cases). I'm ignoring all this stuff about Freud and whatnot, people were undoubtedly using incorrect terminology, but who cares, none of this is important, it's just semantics really.
The division of, as you put it, belief systems is the product of the overall thought process. This is what I have been saying.
The thought process is struggling against the results (the divisions) of it's own process. It creates these results (these divisions of beliefs systems or thought processes) and then struggles against them.
so, contact theory. does being encouraged to spend time with people from different cultures in equal status situations break down racial stereotypes and foster understanding and combat racism? if not how else can we stop the racism
I would say not neccessarily, because I know of many instances where people have been placed in a situation where they had to spend time with people from other cultures and came out more prejudiced than before.
Like I said, it is the inattentiveness to the overall thought process that creates these divisions of racism/nationality/religion/ect.
If someone percieves an overall negative experience being amongst people of a different culture or race, then that memory is going to contribute to further prejudice, further subconscious reflexive actions against them, ect. Conversely, if the person percieves overall positive experience of being amongst a particular culture, they are going to be more likely to accept people of this particular culture. I point to my previous example of flattery to illustrate this particular point.
The division of, as you put it, belief systems is the product of the overall thought process. This is what I have been saying.
The thought process is struggling against the results (the divisions) of it's own process. It creates these results (these divisions of beliefs systems or thought processes) and then struggles against them.
I thought you had discarded this bizarre terminology
EaterOfUterus
09-13-2008, 12:26 PM
A charismatic leader
r1mbaud
09-13-2008, 05:25 PM
an inhuman enemy (worldly threat, specifically one who can talk smack)
Smokey D
09-15-2008, 02:35 AM
Of course it does. What is there a "but" about?
Which is to say we aren't necessarily 'tricked by thought' into believing matter and thought are separate.
Ok, provide me a real world situation where my argument does not hold true.
Strive as I might, I can't extract an argument from this hodgepodge of psychobabble.
What are you talking about it has everything to do with that. Sure, you can distinguish between two objects, no one ever disputed that.
I don't think distinguishing things in your mind can adequately be described as 'dividing your consciousness'.
And also I don't know if it is fair to assume that thought emerges from matter, as one could easily say that matter emerges from thought
No that doesn't follow.
. Either way I hold neither, as I believe both are merely abstractions from a deeper order. Neither emerged from either one.
Maybe.
It is all part of the same process. That which allows us to remember how to tie our shoes is also the same process that divides us. We would like to divide it up so that we may think it is fundamentally different, but it isn't. It is all part of the same process, and that process produces results that it conflicts against.
This statement has absolutely no explanatory power.
It's like saying 'People are born. People fight. Therefore people being born causes people to fight.'
Technically, people being born is required for people to fight but it doesn't establish a causal nexus.
I could say, you have to improve your contextual comprehension abilities.
Maybe, but you still have to work on your logic. It's shocking.
Assume I'm dumb. Explain in the clearest most logical steps possible the movement from memory to fighting.
This is the first time I ever used the term ego in this thread. As you can see, I placed it within a completely relevant context and qualified it the very first time I used it. Any confusion was the result of you taking it out of context and applying predisposed assumptions about what the word is supposed to mean.
You used ego, a Freudian term, and then attributed a bunch of psychobabble to it that roughly fits Freudian theory.
Same with the term "consciousness is divided from itself." I don't believe I ever even used that term, yet it has been brought up as a criticism against what I said several times now.
No, you used it or words to that effect. Divided within yourself, I think, were the words you used. You qualified this with a spiel on consciousness. Then you said something like you can't be an individual if the content of your consciousness is divided.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.